Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Nov 2006 15:00:07 -0800 | From | Stephen Hemminger <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.19-rc1: Volanomark slowdown |
| |
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:07:32 -0800 Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 23:10 +0100, Olaf Kirch wrote: > > > > > In fixing performance issues, the most obvious explanation isn't always > > the right one. It's quite possible you're right, sure. > > > > What I'm saying though is that it doesn't rhyme with what I've seen of > > Volanomark - we ran 2.6.16 on a 4p Intel box for instance and it didn't > > come close to saturating a Gigabit pipe before it maxed out on CPU load. > > > > I am running Volanomark in a loopback mode on a 2P woodcrest box > (4 cores). So the configuration is a bit different. > > In my testing, the CPU utilization is at 100%. So > increase in ACKs will cost CPU to devote more > time to process those ACKs and reduce throughput. > > > > > You could count the number of outbound packets dropped on the server. > > > > As I'm running in loopback mode, there are no dropped packets. >
Optimizing for loopback is perversion; perversion can be fun but it gets to be a obsession then it's sick.
-- Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org> - 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/
| |