![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 04:14:37PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > >>I think you would have better luck in reproducing this problem if you >>did the full sendfile thing. >> >>I think it is becoming disk bound due to page reclaim problems, which >>is causing the slowdown. >> >>In that case, writing the network only test would help to confirm the >>problem is not a networking one - so not useless by any means. > > > Not necessarily, Nick. I have written an HTTP testing tool which matches > the description of Ben's : non-blocking, single-threaded, no disk I/O, > etc... It works flawlessly under 2.4, and gives me random numbers in 2.6, No you're right, I'm not 100% sure, so I'm definitely not saying Ben's test will be useless. Just that if it is not too hard to make one with sendfile, I think he should. If he makes a network-only version and cannot reproduce the problems, that *doesn't* mean it is *not* a network problem. However if he reproduces the problem with a full sendfile version and not the network only one, then that is a better indicator... but I'm rambling. > especially if I start some CPU activity on the system, I can get pauses > of up to 13 seconds without this tool doing anything !!! At first I > believed it was because of the scheduler, but it might also be related > to what is described here since I had somewhat the same setup (gigE, 1500, > thousands of sockets). I never had enough time to investigate more, so I > went back to 2.4. > I have heard other complaints about this, and they are definitely related to the scheduler (not saying yours is, but it is very possible). - 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 13:10 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||