From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc1: Volanomark slowdown Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:08:47 -0800 Message-ID: <1163034527.5931.56.camel@raj-laptop> References: <1162924354.10806.172.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1163001318.3138.346.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20061108162955.GA4364@suse.de> <1163011132.10806.189.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061108221028.GA16889@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Tim Chen , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@sunset.davemloft.net, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from palrel11.hp.com ([156.153.255.246]:8339 "EHLO palrel11.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423982AbWKIBIr (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:08:47 -0500 To: Olaf Kirch In-Reply-To: <20061108221028.GA16889@suse.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 23:10 +0100, Olaf Kirch wrote: > What I'm saying though is that it doesn't rhyme with what I've seen of > Volanomark - we ran 2.6.16 on a 4p Intel box for instance and it didn't > come close to saturating a Gigabit pipe before it maxed out on CPU load. That actually supports the hypothesis doesn't it? The issue being the increased number of ACKs causing additional CPU overhead not saturating a NIC if any involved. One of these days I may have to try to look more closely at what volano does relative to netperf - I remember that someone tried very hard (was it you alexy?) to show a perfomance effect with netperf and it didn't do it :( rick jones