From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [WIP][PATCHES] Network xmit batching Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 20:17:33 -0400 Message-ID: <1181348253.4056.6.camel@localhost> References: <1181218576.4064.40.camel@localhost> <46699192.6010404@hp.com> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Krishna Kumar2 , Gagan Arneja , Evgeniy Polyakov , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Sridhar Samudrala , David Miller , Robert Olsson To: Rick Jones Return-path: Received: from qb-out-0506.google.com ([72.14.204.226]:55680 "EHLO qb-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030974AbXFIARh (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jun 2007 20:17:37 -0400 Received: by qb-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id z8so1168089qbc for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:17:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <46699192.6010404@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2007-08-06 at 10:27 -0700, Rick Jones wrote: [..] > you cannot take the netperf service demand directly - each netperf is > calculating assuming that it is the only thing running on the system. > It then ass-u-me-s that the CPU util it measured was all for its work. > This means the service demand figure will be quite higher than it really is. > > So, for aggregate tests using netperf2, one has to calculate service > demand by hand. Sum the throughput as KB/s, convert the CPU util and > number of CPUs to a microseconds of CPU consumed per second and divide > to get microseconds per KB for the aggregate. >>From what you are saying above seems to me that for more than one proc it is safe to just run netperf4 instead of netperf2? It also seems reasonable to set up large socket buffers on the receiver. cheers, jamal