| To: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| 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 01:59:38 +0100 (CET) |
| Cc: | Ion Badulescu <ionut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.GSO.4.30.0101301944181.3017-100000@shell.cyberus.ca> |
| Reply-to: | <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, jamal wrote:
> Kernel | tput | sender-CPU | receiver-CPU |
> -------------------------------------------------
> 2.4.0-pre3 | 99MB/s | 87% | 23% |
> NSF | | | |
> -------------------------------------------------
> 2.4.0-pre3 | 68 | 8% | 8% |
> +ZC SF | MB/s | | |
> -------------------------------------------------
isnt the CPU utilization difference amazing? :-)
a couple of questions:
- is this UDP or TCP based? (UDP i guess)
- what wsize/rsize are you using? How do these requests look like on the
network, ie. are they suffieciently MTU-sized?
- what happens if you run multiple instances of the testcode, does it
saturate bandwidth (or CPU)?
Ingo
|
| Previous by Date: | Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |