Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:15:38 -0700 | | From | Ben Greear <> | | Subject | Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems |
| |
Danial Thom wrote: > > --- Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote: > > >>Danial Thom wrote: >> >> >>>I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made >> >>trade >> >>>offs that lower raw throughput, which is what >> >>a >> >>>networking device needs. So as a router or >>>network appliance, 2.6 seems less suitable. A >> >>raw >> >>>bridging test on a 2.0Ghz operton system: >>> >>>FreeBSD 4.9: Drops no packets at 900K pps >>>Linux 2.4.24: Starts dropping packets at 350K >> >>pps >> >>>Linux 2.6.12: Starts dropping packets at 100K >> >>pps >> >>I ran some quick tests using kernel 2.6.11, 1ms >>tick (HZ=1000), SMP kernel. >>Hardware is P-IV 3.0Ghz + HT on a new >>SuperMicro motherboard with 64/133Mhz >>PCI-X bus. NIC is dual Intel pro/1000. Kernel >>is close to stock 2.6.11.
> What GigE adapters did you use? Clearly every > driver is going to be different. My experience is > that a 3.4Ghz P4 is about the performance of a > 2.0Ghz Opteron. I have to try your tuning script > tomorrow.
Intel pro/1000, as I mentioned. I haven't tried any other NIC that comes close in performance to the e1000.
> If your test is still set up, try compiling > something large while doing the test. The drops > go through the roof in my tests.
Installing RH9 on the box now to try some tests...
Disk access always robs networking, in my experience, so I am not supprised you see bad ntwk performance while compiling.
Ben
-- Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
- 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/
|  |