From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
To: Olaf Kirch <okir@suse.de>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@sunset.davemloft.net,
kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc1: Volanomark slowdown
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:38:52 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1163011132.10806.189.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061108162955.GA4364@suse.de>
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 17:29 +0100, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> Is it proven that the number of ACKs actually cause bandwidth problems?
> I found Volanomark to exercise the scheduler more than anything else,
> so maybe the slowdown, while triggered by an increased number of ACKs,
> is caused by something else entirely.
>
The patch in question affects purely TCP and not the scheduler. I don't
think the scheduler has anything to do with the slowdown seen after
the patch is applied.
The total number of messages being exchanged around the chatrooms in
Volanomark remain unchanged. But ACKS increase by 3.5 times and
segments received increase by 38% from netstat.
ACK is comparable in size to the actual Volanomark messages as
those are pretty small (<100 byte).
So I think it is reasonable to conclude that the increase in TCP traffic
reduce the bandwidth and throughput in Volanomark.
However, Volanomark is just a benchmark to alert us to changes.
If in real applications with small segment, this patch is
needed to fix congestion window adjustment as Dave pointed
out, and impact on bandwidth not as important, so be it.
Tim
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-08 19:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1162924354.10806.172.camel@localhost.localdomain>
2006-11-07 20:45 ` 2.6.19-rc1: Volanomark slowdown David Miller
2006-11-07 21:50 ` John Heffner
2006-11-07 22:22 ` David Miller
2006-11-07 22:29 ` John Heffner
2006-11-08 10:07 ` Alexey Kuznetsov
2006-11-08 15:55 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-11-08 16:29 ` Olaf Kirch
2006-11-08 18:38 ` Tim Chen [this message]
2006-11-08 19:44 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-11-08 22:10 ` Olaf Kirch
2006-11-08 22:07 ` Tim Chen
2006-11-08 23:00 ` Stephen Hemminger
2006-11-08 22:32 ` Tim Chen
2006-11-09 9:21 ` Olaf Kirch
2006-11-08 22:58 ` Stephen Hemminger
2006-11-09 1:08 ` Rick Jones
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=1163011132.10806.189.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=davem@sunset.davemloft.net \
--cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=okir@suse.de \
/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