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 09:48:58 -0700 Message-ID: <20071002164858.GH17418@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 Cc: Larry McVoy , Herbert Xu , davem@davemloft.net, wscott@bitmover.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Received: from ipcop.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.15]:43467 "EHLO mail.bitmover.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752559AbXJBQs7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 12:48:59 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Isn't this something so straightforward that you would have tests for it? This is the basic FTP server loop, doesn't someone have a big machine with 10gig cards and test that sending/recving data doesn't regress? > Sounds like a bug to me, modulo the above caveat of making sure that it's > not some hw/driver/switch kind of difference. Pretty unlikely given that we've changed the switch, the card works fine in the other direction, and I'm 95% sure that we used to get better perf before we switched to a more recent kernel. I'll try and find some other gig ether cards and try them. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com