From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Subject: Re: tcp bw in 2.6 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:23:58 -0700 Message-ID: <20071003212358.GF6183@bitmover.com> References: <20071002150935.GC17418@bitmover.com> <20071002.133322.52193802.davem@davemloft.net> <20071002212132.GF29944@bitmover.com> <20071003211321.GA13583@ee.oulu.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: lm@bitmover.com, David Miller , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, wscott@bitmover.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Pekka Pietikainen Return-path: Received: from ipcop.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.15]:45820 "EHLO mail.bitmover.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758955AbXJCVX7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:23:59 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071003211321.GA13583@ee.oulu.fi> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > A few notes to the discussion. I've seen one e1000 "bug" that ended up being > a crappy AMD pre-opteron SMP chipset with a totally useless PCI bus > implementation, which limited performance quite a bit-totally depending on > what you plugged in and in which slot. 10e milk-and-bread-store > 32/33 gige nics actually were better than server-class e1000's > in those, but weren't that great either. That could well be my problem, this is a dual processor (not core) athlon (not opteron) tyan motherboard if I recall correctly. > Check your interrupt rates for the interface. You shouldn't be getting > anywhere near 1 interrupt/packet. If you are, something is badly wrong :). The acks (because I'm sending) are about 1.5 packets/interrupt. When this box is receiving it's moving about 3x ass much data and has a _lower_ (absolute, not per packet) interrupt load. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com