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 10:11:54 -0700 Message-ID: <20071002171154.GM17418@bitmover.com> References: <20071002005917.GB5480@bitmover.com> <20071002150935.GC17418@bitmover.com> <20071002154137.GD17418@bitmover.com> <4702766E.80202@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: lm@bitmover.com, Herbert Xu , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, davem@davemloft.net, wscott@bitmover.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Ben Greear Return-path: Received: from ipcop.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.15]:43505 "EHLO mail.bitmover.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754736AbXJBRLy (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:11:54 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4702766E.80202@candelatech.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > I have a more complex configuration & application, but I don't see this > problem in my testing. Using e1000 nics and modern hardware I'm using a similar setup, what kernel are you using? > I am purposefully setting the socket send/rx buffers, as well has > twiddling with the tcp and netdev related tunables. Ben sent those to me, see below, they didn't make any difference. I tried diddling the socket send/recv buffers to 10MB, that didn't help. The defaults didn't help. 1MB didn't help and 64K didn't help. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com