[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: want opinions on possible glitch in 2.4 network error reporting
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Ben Greear wrote:

> >>From the limited testing I just ran, I appears that starfire and 3c59x
> > handle this correctly, whereas tulip always loses a small number of
> > packets during a UDP storm. ttcp -us[rt] is very useful for such
> > testing...
> It would be interesting to see which side is dropping? Have you
> coorelated ethernet driver counters to your sendto count?

It's hard for me to do it right now, because I don't have them in
isolation (they do NFS and other stuff), and I don't have iptables support
compiled into the kernel running the tulip. However:

starfire -> 3c59x
3c59x -> starfire
tulip -> 3c59x
tulip -> starfire

never lose data on a quiescent network:

ttcp-t: 83886080 bytes in 7.04 real seconds = 11640.36 KB/sec +++
ttcp-r: 83886080 bytes in 7.04 real seconds = 11641.10 KB/sec +++


3c59x -> tulip
starfire -> tulip

*always* lose several packets:

ttcp-t: 16777216 bytes in 1.40 real seconds = 11717.40 KB/sec +++
ttcp-r: 16769024 bytes in 1.40 real seconds = 11679.39 KB/sec +++


ttcp-t: 33554432 bytes in 2.80 real seconds = 11714.81 KB/sec +++
ttcp-r: 33456128 bytes in 2.80 real seconds = 11660.28 KB/sec +++


ttcp-t: 83886080 bytes in 7.00 real seconds = 11704.40 KB/sec +++
ttcp-r: 83722240 bytes in 7.00 real seconds = 11674.67 KB/sec +++

So I would tend to blame it on the tulip -- but the Rx side of it, not the
Tx, which this discussion was about...


It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool,
than to open it and remove all doubt.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.075 / U:2.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site