| To: | Richard Gooch <rgooch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Poor gige performance with 2.4.20-pre* |
| From: | Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 29 Sep 2002 20:45:10 -0400 |
| Cc: | "Xiaoliang (David) Wei" <weixl@xxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200209290634.g8T6Y2o08439@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from rgooch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 12:34:02AM -0600 |
| References: | <200209282257.g8SMvta32527@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <002f01c2675d$b642b640$f5f2010a@weixl> <200209290634.g8T6Y2o08439@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 12:34:02AM -0600, Richard Gooch wrote:
> This is all on a LAN (of course; expecting good performance from a WAN
> is pretty futile). I use a buffer size of 256 KiB.
From my experience tuning on a 550MHz P3 Xeon, you're better off using a
buffer size of 8-16KB that stays in the L1 cache. Of course, that was
without actually doing anything useful with the data being transferred.
Gige really does need a faster cpu in the ghz+ range. As for ns83820,
it's a work in progress. Some of the recent bugfixes may have reduced
performance, so it may need to be retuned.
-ben
--
GMS rules.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [BK/GNU] net driver 2.4.x series 7, Jeff Garzik |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Poor gige performance with 2.4.20-pre*, Richard Gooch |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Poor gige performance with 2.4.20-pre*, Richard Gooch |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Poor gige performance with 2.4.20-pre*, Richard Gooch |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |