| To: | Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: pktgen |
| From: | Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:53:54 +0100 |
| Cc: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <16808.28005.74903.881087@robur.slu.se> |
| References: | <20041111233507.GA3202@xi.wantstofly.org> <20041124161848.GA18059@xi.wantstofly.org> <16804.48120.375307.718766@robur.slu.se> <20041124170948.GC18059@xi.wantstofly.org> <16804.60621.990421.525393@robur.slu.se> <20041125030450.GA24417@xi.wantstofly.org> <16805.40983.937641.670275@robur.slu.se> <20041127002841.GA17184@xi.wantstofly.org> <20041127004325.GA17401@xi.wantstofly.org> <16808.28005.74903.881087@robur.slu.se> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 01:04:53PM +0100, Robert Olsson wrote: > 60 825789 > 64 748975 > 68 729149 > 72 719721 > 76 720204 > 80 720127 > 84 702722 > 88 702799 > 92 705107 > 96 701711 > 100 703858 > 104 692120 > 108 696139 > 112 708936 > 116 697780 > 120 677887 > 124 678158 > 128 739290 > 132 737070 > 136 736894 > 140 737645 > 144 737816 > 148 682755 > 152 648547 > 156 646464 This part is strange. In my case the pps rate for 132-byte packets is 100kpps lower than for 60-byte packets, in your case the curve is rather flat. Perhaps you're CPU-bound here (or hitting some NIC limit.) Your data is a bit noisy -- can you rerun the test for the 60-200 byte packet range but using 10M packets per run instead of 1M? > 160 679270 From this point onwards your HW can saturate the pipe, this is the boring part of the graph. thanks, Lennert |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: crappy/good gigabit chipsets?, Francois Romieu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | tcp port reuse checking TCP_LISTEN state, Ilya Pashkovsky |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: pktgen, Robert Olsson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: pktgen, Lennert Buytenhek |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |