From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: NAPI-ized tulip patch against 2.4.20-rc1 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 13:25:54 -0800 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <3DCADA62.7000601@candelatech.com> References: <15818.55916.259489.688198@robur.slu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "'netdev@oss.sgi.com'" Return-path: To: Robert Olsson Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Robert Olsson wrote: > greear@candelatech.com writes: > > On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, jamal wrote: > > > Trash the machines harder. Try using smaller packets; > > > > They are already dropping packets, I thought I'd try to get a slower run > > to work cleanly before trying something faster. Precision is more > > important to me than absolute throughput at this point. > > > If you need excessive buffering this gives latency and jitter which is > considered bad for network protocols and worse for test equipment. It depends on the goals of the test, but I agree in principle :) > > > Initial run with 256 sized rx-ring (and skb-recycle) shows better > > performance (than with 1024 rx-ring) > > Packet size? Expect eventual effects when there is very high pressure on > the packet memory system. Packet size has been 1514 for all my recent tests. For an extended 256 rx-ring run (4kpps send + rcv, 1514 byte packet, 4 ports), I see about 9k dropped packets per 55 million sent & received. Ben > > > Cheers. > --ro > -- Ben Greear President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear