From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751361AbVHYGPr (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:15:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751250AbVHYGPr (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:15:47 -0400 Received: from ns1.lanforge.com ([66.165.47.210]:40346 "EHLO www.lanforge.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751207AbVHYGPq (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:15:46 -0400 Message-ID: <430D620A.6050204@candelatech.com> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:15:38 -0700 From: Ben Greear Organization: Candela Technologies User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050719 Fedora/1.7.10-1.3.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: danial_thom@yahoo.com CC: Jesper Juhl , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems References: <20050825060843.15874.qmail@web33311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20050825060843.15874.qmail@web33311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Danial Thom wrote: > > --- Ben Greear wrote: > > >>Danial Thom wrote: >> >> >>>I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made >> >>trade >> >>>offs that lower raw throughput, which is what >> >>a >> >>>networking device needs. So as a router or >>>network appliance, 2.6 seems less suitable. A >> >>raw >> >>>bridging test on a 2.0Ghz operton system: >>> >>>FreeBSD 4.9: Drops no packets at 900K pps >>>Linux 2.4.24: Starts dropping packets at 350K >> >>pps >> >>>Linux 2.6.12: Starts dropping packets at 100K >> >>pps >> >>I ran some quick tests using kernel 2.6.11, 1ms >>tick (HZ=1000), SMP kernel. >>Hardware is P-IV 3.0Ghz + HT on a new >>SuperMicro motherboard with 64/133Mhz >>PCI-X bus. NIC is dual Intel pro/1000. Kernel >>is close to stock 2.6.11. > What GigE adapters did you use? Clearly every > driver is going to be different. My experience is > that a 3.4Ghz P4 is about the performance of a > 2.0Ghz Opteron. I have to try your tuning script > tomorrow. Intel pro/1000, as I mentioned. I haven't tried any other NIC that comes close in performance to the e1000. > If your test is still set up, try compiling > something large while doing the test. The drops > go through the roof in my tests. Installing RH9 on the box now to try some tests... Disk access always robs networking, in my experience, so I am not supprised you see bad ntwk performance while compiling. Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com