| To: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: NAPI interrupt data |
| From: | Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:55:46 -0500 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030215092908.E16812@shell.cyberus.ca> |
| Organization: | none |
| References: | <3E4DE95C.2050804@pobox.com> <20030215092908.E16812@shell.cyberus.ca> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021213 Debian/1.2.1-2.bunk |
jamal wrote:
Over 4000 interrupts per second was not something I was hoping for, to be honest. ttcp did not even report 50% CPU utilization, so I reach the conclusion that both machines can handle well in excess of 4,000 interrupts per second... but overall I do not like the unbounded nature of the interrupt rate. This data makes me lean towards a software[NAPI] + hardware mitigation solution, as opposed to totally depending on software interrupt mitigation. > definetly the scsi device is skewing things (you are writting data to disk for example). Yes, though only once 5 seconds when ext3 flushes. With nothing else going on but "ttcp" and "cat /proc/interrupts >> data ; sleep 1" there should be very little disk I/O. I agree it is skewing by an unknown factor, however. - The 500Kpps from ttcp doesnt sound right; tcp will slow you down. perhaps use ttcp to send udp packets to get a more interesting view. No, I ran 500,000 buffer I/Os total from ttcp ("-n 500000"). That doesn't really say anything about packets per second. The only thing I measured was interrupts per second. It was my mistake to type "packets" in the first email :/ Jeff |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: NAPI interrupt data, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: NAPI interrupt data, jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: NAPI interrupt data, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: NAPI interrupt data, jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |