From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.10.76.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx.ozlabs.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK)) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9929B70C3 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 22:56:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail-bw0-f208.google.com (mail-bw0-f208.google.com [209.85.218.208]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46EBDDD04 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 22:56:35 +1000 (EST) Received: by bwz4 with SMTP id 4so899952bwz.9 for ; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:56:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 14:56:30 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ppc405ex + gigabit ethernet From: Lada Podivin To: LiuMing Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163646be02b750bd046da473d3 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --00163646be02b750bd046da473d3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eh! I mean Mb/s NOT Kb/s! Sorry! 2009/7/1 Lada Podivin > Thank you for your reply! > Yes, I agree the CPU is the bottleneck. But I have performed more tests > with the netperf tool and results seem strange to me. If I send 800 B of > data, the resulting speed is aproximately 100 Kb/s. On the other hand, If= I > try to send 32KB chunk of data with jumbo frames turned on, resulting spe= ed > is about 600 Kb/s (300-400 without jumbo frames). My ppc405ex runs at 600 > MHz. > > So it seems that it is definetely better idea to call sendto() less > frequently with bigger amounts of data, than to call it more often with > smaler amounts. Is it because smaller data means more frequent user > space/kernel space switching? Or is it network related issue? > > Thanks! > > Best, > Lada > > 2009/7/1 LiuMing > > Hi, >> According to our experience on PPC405 + Gigabit Enet, your result is >> already very reasonable. For UDP transmission, it can be around 400 Kb/s >> because of the CPU bottleneck (in our case 300 MHz ppc405). If you want >> to further improve it, a faster CPU is needed to process the TCP/IP stac= k, >> or you may buy commercial TCP/IP stack rather than using the free Linux = one. >> >> >> BR >> Ming >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:58:53 +0200 >> Subject: ppc405ex + gigabit ethernet >> From: lada.podivin@gmail.com >> To: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I benchmarked performance of my network, which contains ppc405EX (Kilaue= a >> board, kernel 2.6.30 from Denx) connected with a linux desktop via gigab= it >> ethernet. I used the netperf tool: >> >> netperf -t UDP_STREAM -H 192.168.1.1 -- -m 32768 >> >> So I was sending UDP packets to the desktop. The resulting speed was abo= ut >> 370 Kb/s. I tried to send the packets to several different computers - w= ith >> the same result. So the ppc board is the bottleneck in this case. >> >> Is there any possibility to improve the gigabit capabilities of the >> ppc405EX? Is there anyone who achieved a better performance with ppc4xx >> boards? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Best, >> Lada Podivin >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> =C1=A2=BF=CC=CF=C2=D4=D8 MSN =B1=A3=BB=A4=B6=DC=A3=AC=B1=A3=D5=CF MSN = =B0=B2=C8=AB=CE=C8=B6=A8=A3=A1 =CF=D6=D4=DA=BE=CD=CF=C2=D4=D8=A3=A1 >> > > --00163646be02b750bd046da473d3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eh! I mean Mb/s NOT Kb/s! Sorry!

2009/7/1= Lada Podivin <lada.podivin@gmail.com>
Thank you for your reply!
Yes, I agree the CPU is the bottleneck. But I = have performed more tests with the netperf tool and results seem strange to= me. If I send 800 B of data, the resulting speed is aproximately 100 Kb/s.= On the other hand, If I try to send 32KB chunk of data with jumbo frames t= urned on, resulting speed is about 600 Kb/s (300-400 without jumbo frames).= My ppc405ex runs at 600 MHz.

So it seems that it is definetely better idea to call sendto() less fre= quently with bigger amounts of data, than to call it more often with smaler= amounts. Is it because smaller data means more frequent user space/kernel = space switching? Or is it network related issue? 

Thanks!

Best,
Lada

2009/7/1= LiuMing <eemingliu@hotmail.com>

Hi,
According to our experience on PPC405 + Gigabit Enet, your result is alread= y very reasonable. For UDP transmission, it can be around 400 Kb/s because = of the CPU bottleneck (in our case 300 MHz ppc405). If you want to&nbs= p;further improve it, a faster CPU is needed to process the TCP/IP stack, o= r you may buy commercial TCP/IP stack rather than using the free = Linux one.
 
BR
Ming
 
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:58:53 +0200
Subject: ppc405ex + gigabit ethern= et
From: lad= a.podivin@gmail.com
To: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org


Hi,

I benchmarked performance of my network,= which contains ppc405EX (Kilauea board, kernel 2.6.30 from Denx) connected= with a linux desktop via gigabit ethernet. I used the netperf tool:

netperf -t UDP_STREAM -H 192.168.1.1 -- -m 32768

So I was sendin= g UDP packets to the desktop. The resulting speed was about 370 Kb/s. I tri= ed to send the packets to several different computers - with the same resul= t. So the ppc board is the bottleneck in this case.

Is there any possibility to improve the gigabit capabilities of the ppc= 405EX? Is there anyone who achieved a better performance with ppc4xx boards= ?

Thanks!

Best,
Lada Podivin


=C1=A2=BF=CC=CF=C2=D4=D8 MSN =B1=A3=BB=A4=B6=DC=A3=AC=B1=A3=D5=CF MSN = =B0=B2=C8=AB=CE=C8=B6=A8=A3=A1 =CF=D6=D4=DA=BE=CD=CF=C2=D4=D8=A3=A1


--00163646be02b750bd046da473d3--