| To: | andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx (Andrew Morton) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: More measurements |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Tue, 30 Jan 2001 22:14:24 +0300 (MSK) |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3A76C5DE.993BB140@uow.edu.au> from "Andrew Morton" at Jan 30, 1 04:45:00 pm |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > ** Yup, I just retested everything. With vanilla 2.4.1, > when data is sent with sendfile() we get 25% more packets > coming back than when sending with 64 kbyte send()s. And > 25% more bytes. This was due to pushes made by 4K writes used by old sendfile(). Pretty silly feature, but it seems to be required. 25% of packets are better than full collapse in some cases. Sigh... In any case, I did not understand one thing: do you really see some case, when you do not saturate eepro100? This is sort of difficult to make. Alexey |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [UPDATE] Fresh zerocopy patch on kernel.org, Tom Rini |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), kuznet |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: More measurements, Andrew Morton |
| Next by Thread: | Re: More measurements, Andrew Morton |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |