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 10:21:55 -0700 Message-ID: <20071002172155.GP17418@bitmover.com> References: <20071002005917.GB5480@bitmover.com> <20071002150935.GC17418@bitmover.com> <20071002154137.GD17418@bitmover.com> <4702766E.80202@candelatech.com> <20071002171154.GM17418@bitmover.com> <47027D80.4070506@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]:43532 "EHLO mail.bitmover.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755773AbXJBRVz (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:21:55 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47027D80.4070506@candelatech.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > I'm currently on 2.6.20, and have also tried 10gbe nics on 2.6.23 with My guess is that it is a bug in the debian 2.6.18 kernel. > Have you tried something like ttcp, iperf, or even regular ftp? Yeah, I've factored out the code since BitKeeper, my test program, and John's test program all exhibit the same behaviour. Also switched switches. > Checked your nics to make sure they have no errors and are negotiated > to full duplex? Yup and yup. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com