Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCHv5 0/9] Improving the routing protocol abstraction

[Antonio Quartulli <ordex@autistici.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3040 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:54:42PM +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> Hello list,
> 
> This is the *fifth* version of the "improved routing abstraction" patchset.
> Thanks for the feedback so far! (Message below is the same as v3)

This night I performed another series of tests using two OM2P-HSs meshing over
the Ethernet interface.
The tests have been performed by using iperf which generated a UDP stream from a
node to the other.

After discussing with Marek we decided to use iperf because it would have
generated much more CPU load than a "client-to-client" test and would have
probably helped in showing the performance loss given by the patchset.

The command used was "iperf -uc 192.168.103.2 -b 85M".
Bandwidth higher than 85M was generating packet loss >20% so I decided to do not
go beyond that value.


The results are:
without abstraciton patchset:

[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.3 MBytes  82.4 Mbits/sec   0.054 ms  406/70494 (0.58%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.5 MBytes  82.6 Mbits/sec   0.058 ms  726/70999 (1%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.8 MBytes  82.9 Mbits/sec   0.077 ms  422/70931 (0.59%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.7 MBytes  82.8 Mbits/sec   0.078 ms  550/70938 (0.78%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.7 MBytes  82.8 Mbits/sec   0.057 ms  380/70795 (0.54%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.1 MBytes  82.3 Mbits/sec   0.053 ms  516/70499 (0.73%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.6 MBytes  82.7 Mbits/sec   0.088 ms  267/70614 (0.38%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.4 MBytes  82.6 Mbits/sec   0.056 ms  515/70726 (0.73%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.5 MBytes  82.7 Mbits/sec   0.044 ms  526/70817 (0.74%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.3 MBytes  82.5 Mbits/sec   0.044 ms  691/70811 (0.98%)

with abstraction patchset:
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.0 MBytes  82.2 Mbits/sec   0.113 ms  671/70568 (0.95%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.7 MBytes  82.8 Mbits/sec   0.085 ms  600/70989 (0.85%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.5 MBytes  82.6 Mbits/sec   0.088 ms  496/70725 (0.7%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.5 MBytes  82.6 Mbits/sec   0.063 ms  537/70784 (0.76%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.4 MBytes  82.6 Mbits/sec   0.093 ms  589/70798 (0.83%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.1 MBytes  82.3 Mbits/sec   0.060 ms  761/70742 (1.1%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.0 MBytes  82.2 Mbits/sec   0.098 ms  764/70674 (1.1%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.5 MBytes  82.7 Mbits/sec   0.063 ms  761/71047 (1.1%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  97.9 MBytes  82.2 Mbits/sec   0.067 ms  953/70821 (1.3%)
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec  98.0 MBytes  82.2 Mbits/sec   0.070 ms  697/70620 (0.99%)

Given the results I would say that the patchset is not introducing any
performance loss.

By the way I am not 100% that the overhead brought by iperf is comparable
to the overhead generated by the abstraction code..if not, the consequence
could be that iperf is hiding the overhead given by the patchset.


However we can say that the patchset is not introducing any big performance
drop and this is a good point! :-)

Cheers,

-- 
Antonio Quartulli

..each of us alone is worth nothing..
Ernesto "Che" Guevara

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]