| To: | Malcolm Beattie <mbeattie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN) |
| From: | Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:24:53 +0100 (CET) |
| Cc: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ion Badulescu <ionut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20010131112145.A13345@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Malcolm Beattie wrote:
> Without the raised tcp_wmem setting I was getting 81 MByte/s. With
> tcp_wmem set as above I got 86 MByte/s. Nice increase. Any other
> setting I can tweak apart from {r,w}mem_max and tcp_{w,r}mem? The CPU
> on the client (350 MHz PII) is the bottleneck: gensink4 maxes out at
> 69 Mbyte/s pulling TCP from the server and 94 Mbyte/s pushing. (The
> other system, 733 MHz PIII pushes >100MByte/s UDP with ttcp but the
> client drops most of it).
you can speed up the client significantly by using the MSG_TRUNC option
('truncate message'). It will zap incoming data without copying it into
user-space. (you can use this for the 'bulk transfer' part - the initial
protocol handling code needs to see the actual data.) This way you should
be able to saturate the server even more.
Ingo
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Malcolm Beattie |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [UPDATE] Fresh zerocopy patch on kernel.org, Malcolm Beattie |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Malcolm Beattie |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to dowith ECN), Rick Jones |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |