From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: tcp bw in 2.6 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:18:56 -0700 Message-ID: <47027D80.4070506@candelatech.com> References: <20071002005917.GB5480@bitmover.com> <20071002150935.GC17418@bitmover.com> <20071002154137.GD17418@bitmover.com> <4702766E.80202@candelatech.com> <20071002171154.GM17418@bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lm@bitmover.com, Ben Greear , Herbert Xu , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, davem@davemloft.net, wscott@bitmover.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from ns2.lanforge.com ([66.165.47.211]:56929 "EHLO ns2.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754940AbXJBRTO (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:19:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20071002171154.GM17418@bitmover.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Larry McVoy wrote: >> 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'm currently on 2.6.20, and have also tried 10gbe nics on 2.6.23 with good results. At least for my app, performance has been pretty steady at least as far back as the .18 kernels, and probably before.... I do 64k or smaller writes & reads, and non-blocking IO (not sure if that would matter..but I do :) Have you tried something like ttcp, iperf, or even regular ftp? Checked your nics to make sure they have no errors and are negotiated to full duplex? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com