From: David Acker <dacker@roinet.com>
To: Bill Fink <billfink@mindspring.com>
Cc: SANGTAE HA <sangtae.ha@gmail.com>,
Bruce Allen <ballen@gravity.phys.uwm.edu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: e1000 full-duplex TCP performance well below wire speed
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:50:14 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47A1E026.2070805@roinet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080131064533.ef0ae932.billfink@mindspring.com>
Bill Fink wrote:
> If the receive direction uses a different GigE NIC that's part of the
> same quad-GigE, all is fine:
>
> [bill@chance4 ~]$ nuttcp -f-beta -Itx -w2m 192.168.6.79 & nuttcp -f-beta -Irx -r -w2m 192.168.5.79
> tx: 1186.5051 MB / 10.05 sec = 990.2250 Mbps 12 %TX 13 %RX 0 retrans
> rx: 1186.7656 MB / 10.05 sec = 990.5204 Mbps 15 %TX 14 %RX 0 retrans
Could this be an issue with pause frames? At a previous job I remember
having issues with a similar configuration using two broadcom sb1250 3
gigE port devices. If I ran bidirectional tests on a single pair of
ports connected via cross over, it was slower than when I gave each
direction its own pair of ports. The problem turned out to be that
pause frame generation and handling was not configured correctly.
-Ack
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-31 14:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-30 9:51 e1000 full-duplex TCP performance well below wire speed Bruce Allen
2008-01-30 13:18 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-30 13:38 ` Bruce Allen
2008-01-30 14:08 ` David Miller
2008-01-30 13:53 ` David Miller
2008-01-30 14:01 ` Bruce Allen
2008-01-30 16:21 ` Stephen Hemminger
2008-01-30 22:25 ` Bruce Allen
2008-01-30 22:33 ` Stephen Hemminger
2008-01-30 23:23 ` Bruce Allen
2008-01-31 0:17 ` SANGTAE HA
2008-01-31 8:52 ` Bruce Allen
2008-01-31 11:45 ` Bill Fink
2008-01-31 14:50 ` David Acker [this message]
2008-01-31 15:57 ` Bruce Allen
2008-01-31 15:54 ` Bruce Allen
2008-01-31 17:36 ` Bill Fink
2008-01-31 19:37 ` Bruce Allen
2008-01-31 18:26 ` Brandeburg, Jesse
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=47A1E026.2070805@roinet.com \
--to=dacker@roinet.com \
--cc=ballen@gravity.phys.uwm.edu \
--cc=billfink@mindspring.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sangtae.ha@gmail.com \
--cc=shemminger@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox