> Thanks for doing this ;-> I wish people would post networking related
> issues to netdev (or cc netdev at least); maybe it should be on the FAQ
Well, sorry for not doing it, you are totally right, I should have posted on
netdev or at least cced. And sorry also for taking me so long to answer
this.
> Can you post how many packets were dropped by the hardware? just post the
> output of ifconfig.
As I said at the beginning of the message...
> > time and the received network packets and overruns, during this time, in
> > all cases counter for errors, dropped or frame showed 0. The test takes
Wich means the on the output of ifconfig all counters for packages where 0
except the ones that I have noted on my comments Received packages and
overruns (leaving aside the transmited packages that is), but If you want
the full output I can run tests again.
> > I tried to spam 2.4.9ac18 with the same three machines I had used for the
> > last 2.2.19 test but the machine was almost totally frozen, after 6 hours of
> > test I stopped it.
> I am confused. Is this a different test?
> You say above taht for that kernel "Time: 42 minutes 48 seconds" for
> "RX packets (aprox): 109 million overruns: 664"
Well, yes, I added one more machine sendding packages for this test, so the
load was even higher on the system and the bunzip2 did get even less cpu
time, the console started to give very slow response because of the high
load that this extra machine put on it.
> And from you results above it is inconclusive that is the case.
> It seems to me the time is proportional to the amount of packets received.
Yes, time is proportional to the amount of packages as the packages/second
was constant, I mean that I had all that time the two (or the three in that
special test) machines running this program spamming at full speed, using
the hole cpu to spam.
> I guess i am confused a little about your results.
> Also what would help is to describe your packet sizes, send and
> receive rates etc.
The packages are 4 bytes udp packages they are sent at the full ratio at
which a P200MMX running 2.2.19 and a P166 running 2.4.10 can, I haven't
calculated any ratios, but If you want I can try to, one could guess that
from the number of interrupts that 2.2.19 was showing, I suppose. If we
assume that then it would be 38500 packages per second, but If I calculate
that from the time of the test being run and the number of received packages
shown by ifconfig I get 42500 wich seems a more exact number to me.
> One thing would help is to say what the packet sizes are etc. And the
I'm attaching the code of udpspam.c from Simon Kirby as he has said that the
license was GPL without any warranty, he also said that he would publish it
on his web but I haven't been able to find it.
> switch in between might cause issues; can you try one powerful machine
> directly connected?
I tried that also, but there was no noticeable difference.
Regards...
--
Manty/BestiaTester -> http://manty.net
|