lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS-feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Complete thread (EXPERIMENTAL)
/
DateMon, 9 Dec 2002 12:08:14 +0100
FromStephan von Krawczynski <>
SubjectRe: hidden interface (ARP) 2.4.20
Digg This
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 18:01:35 +0100
Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org> wrote:

I guess it would really be a great help if someone did tests like Cons' "overall performance" ones for network performance explicitly. Like e.g. performance for various packet-sizes of all available protocol types, possibly including NAT connections. We have no comparable figures at hand right now, I guess.

Why not ?
I've often been doing this to check the reliability of the network layer of kernels that I distribute. I often use Tux for this, because it can easily sustain 10k hits/s during months.

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 :-)

-- 
Regards,
Stephan
\
ISP Services
Valid XHTML 1.0!\ /
Valid CSS! Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31    [W:0.255 / U:0.320 seconds]
©2003-2005 Jasper Spaans