![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:40:18 +0100 Roberto Nibali <ratz@drugphish.ch> wrote: > > This is unfortunately not sufficient, not even close to. If you really want > > to have a good idea what is going on you should as well check out what is > > happening with packet sizes a lot smaller than 1500 (normal mtu). Check > > data rate an packet loss with packet sizes around 80 bytes or so to get an > > idea what bothers us :-) > > But this doesn't have anything to do with the hidden patch! It can be > multiple things: > > o missing TCP segment offload support > o inefficient zerocopy DMA support cannot comment these. > o IRQ routing problems no. > o wrong QoS settings no. > Could you please be more specific on what exactly you're trying to > achieve? Do you want to load balance an application whose average > package size is 80 bytes? How many sustained connections per seconds do > you have? Well, what I am trying to say is this: my experience is that under load with small sized packets even standard routing/packet forwarding becomes lossy. If I put NAT and other nice netfilter features on top of such a situation things get a lot worse (obviously) - no comparison to building the "application" (e.g. cluster) with routing and hidden-patch (mainly because of its pure simplicity I guess). Don't get me wrong: I am pretty content with the hidden-patch and my setup without NAT. But I wanted to point to the direction of possible further routing performance improvement in 2.4.X tree. Is it correct that I can expect higher data-rates (concerning small packets) if using higher HZ ? Someone selling E3 cards told me he cannot manage loads like these (small packet stuff) with a stock kernel, and that you _at least_ have to increase HZ to get acceptable throughput results. -- Regards, Stephan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||