lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: FTP benchmark proposal
    > I've talked with some ZD Labs people, and they're at least interested in
    > investigating letting us use their lab for a bit. It would be silly to
    > ignore this offer, as they have all the hardware setup and ready to go and
    > good experience running this sort of thing.

    Hey, if they will let you play, go for it. I wasn't saying we should turn
    down hardware access or help from ZD Labs or any other source. I was just
    saying that it would be nicer to have something more concrete. ZD has
    other things to test. If they are willing to help, great, but we can't
    expect them to offer up hardware to use forever. That said, I stand
    corrected about thier motives and should not have insinuated they were
    offering up support with only themselves in mind. Perhaps I've grown a
    bit too jaded.

    > why? should we also use a single ide drive? multiple 100mb nics simply
    > do not aggregate traffic as well as a single gigabit card. If I were
    > setting up a site of this magnitude I sure as hell wouldn't want to mess
    > around with the silliness of having lots of nics.

    No no. A Gb card is the way to go in the real world, no question,
    and it would be a cold day in hell before I would choose multiple NICs
    over a Gb in this scenario. But, there are cases where multiple NICs
    makes some sense. Consider the case of a fileserver serving 4 subnets in
    a shop with only a routed 100Mb backbone. Will they rip out the routers
    and throw in Level 3 Gb switches just for thier fileserver? Cost may
    force them to go with 4 NICs, one on to each subnet, instead. It isn't
    like 1xIDE vs. SCSI RAID. One IDE drive sucks because of its physical
    limitations. 4x100Mb NICs don't beat 1 Gb NIC, but NT got more out of 4
    NICs than Linux did. Yes, this is just benchmark and it means little
    in the real world, but it shows that there is some sort of scaling problem
    in the Linux 2.2.x network code.

    Which leads to:
    > The software problem is mostly fixed in 2.3, the fundamental hardware
    > problem still remains.

    Absolutly Right. That's how it should be. Linux can't fix the
    hardware, but it should push it to its limits. Back to the issue of a
    test platform, if we have to choose Gb or 100Mb, Gb it the thing to test.
    I'm no kernel hacker, but I assume the network folks would like to be able
    to test multi interface scaling in addition to Gb NIC performance.

    Now, I will shut my yap.

    -Paul

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Paul M. Hirsch Network Engineer EXi, Corp.
    smtp[0]-->phirsch@exicorp.com smtp[1]-->pauldoom@telebot.com
    PGP fingerprint = CF43 3528 BA9D 9681 C242 06C3 6235 8573 71EA 5828
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------




    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.023 / U:89.640 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site