From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Subject: Re: tcp bw in 2.6 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:25:34 -0700 Message-ID: <20071002162534.GG17418@bitmover.com> References: <20071002005917.GB5480@bitmover.com> <20071002150935.GC17418@bitmover.com> <20071002154137.GD17418@bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: lm@bitmover.com, Herbert Xu , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, davem@davemloft.net, wscott@bitmover.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from ipcop.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.15]:43382 "EHLO mail.bitmover.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751669AbXJBQZf (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 12:25:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071002154137.GD17418@bitmover.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > If the server side is the source of the data, i.e, it's transfer is a > write loop, then I get the bad behaviour. > ... > So is this a bug or intentional? For whatever it is worth, I believed that we used to get better performance from the same hardware. My guess is that it changed somewhere between 2.6.15-1-k7 and 2.6.18-5-k7. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com