| To: | Ion Badulescu <ionut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN) |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:49:35 -0500 (EST) |
| Cc: | Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <200101271005.f0RA5DX04357@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Ion Badulescu wrote: > > 750MHz PIII, Adaptec Starfire NIC, driver modified to use hardware sg+csum > (both Tx/Rx), and Intel i82559 (eepro100), no hardware csum support, > vanilla driver. > > The box has 512MB of RAM, and I'm using a 100MB file, so it's entirely cached. > > starfire: > 2.4.1-pre10+zerocopy, using sendfile(): 9.6% CPU > 2.4.1-pre10+zerocopy, using read()/write(): 18.3%-29.6% CPU * why > so much variance? > What are your throughput numbers? Could you also, please, test using: http://www.cyberus.ca/~hadi/ttcp-sf.tar.gz post both sender and receiver data. Repeat each test about 5 times. cheers, jamal |
| Previous by Date: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Andrew Morton |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Andrew Morton |
| Next by Thread: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Ion Badulescu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |