From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:01:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:01:20 -0500 Received: from mean.netppl.fi ([195.242.208.16]:43535 "EHLO mean.netppl.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:01:03 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:00:48 +0200 From: Pekka Pietikainen To: Tim Sailer Cc: John Heffner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jfung@bnl.gov Subject: Re: Network Performance? Message-ID: <20010111120048.A10115@netppl.fi> In-Reply-To: <20010109115302.A32135@bnl.gov> <20010109155611.B3563@bnl.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i In-Reply-To: <20010109155611.B3563@bnl.gov> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 03:56:11PM -0500, Tim Sailer wrote: > > The defaults must be large unless your application calls setsockopt() to > > set the buffers itself. (Some FTP clients and servers can do this, but > > for testing, your're still probably better always having the _max's and > > _default's the same.) > > Hm.. OK. I think we tried that, but I'll check again. And make sure your ftp client/server isn't resetting it to something small afterwards. For testing this, I'd use a real IP benchmarking program like iperf/netperf/ttcp, as they'll let you test different buffer sizes easily (and in the case of iperf tell you what you're actually using if you hit the limit) For a fast WAN you want something like 512k-1M buffers easily. -- Pekka Pietikainen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/