| To: | Christian Schmid <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: many outgoing tcp sockets are slower than a few |
| From: | Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:02:23 +0100 |
| Cc: | bert hubert <ahu@xxxxxxx>, Nivedita Singhvi <niv@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4219B99E.1000603@rapidforum.com> |
| References: | <421925DB.2060602@rapidforum.com> <42192AAF.8020609@us.ibm.com> <42192CD5.5090401@rapidforum.com> <20050221090121.GA7478@outpost.ds9a.nl> <4219B99E.1000603@rapidforum.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:36:14AM +0100, Christian Schmid wrote: > Outgoing data. I am using sendfile() to send the file on a non-blocking > socket but the call blocks for 100 ms per socket if I get over 3000 > sockets. Thats causing the massive slowdown in sum. I first thought its a > disk-issue but I tried with pure-cache data as well and it still blocks. O_NONBLOCK send() is really nonblocking, but O_NONBLOCK sendfile() really isn't, as it still does the disk read (if any) synchronously. How are you making sure that you're sending "pure-cache data"? --L |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Intel and TOE in the news, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: many outgoing tcp sockets are slower than a few, bert hubert |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: many outgoing tcp sockets are slower than a few, Christian Schmid |
| Next by Thread: | Re: many outgoing tcp sockets are slower than a few, bert hubert |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |