stp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Current status?

To: stp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Current status?
From: Stephen Bailey <steph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:00:14 -0500
In-reply-to: Message from Pekka Pietikainen <Pekka.Pietikainen@cern.ch> of "Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:24:17 +0200." <Pine.LNX.3.95a.1001027141821.18786A-100000@lxplus010>
Sender: owner-stp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Pekka,

Thanks for the numbers.  80 MB/s with 1-2% CPU is pretty cool.  As
Aman mentioned, you've hit the limit of that poor little embedded
processor on the NIC, at least with your present firmware (heh, heh,
heh, thin adapters rule!).

> As for latency, 
> [...]
> Which isn't too bad considering STP needs that extra round-trip for
> every write() to setup the buffers. 

Just for those who don't know, the latency comparison would be more
appropriately made using an ST persistent memory regions, to avoid the
setup round-trip, and OS context switches.  ST persistent memory is
the feature in ST to which the marketing label `low latency' applies.

I don't know if the Linux STP code supports persistent memory yet, but
perhaps not.

Steph



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>