From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: [WIP][PATCHES] Network xmit batching Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:35:14 -0700 Message-ID: <467FFCD2.30908@hp.com> References: <1181216629.4064.22.camel@localhost> <20070619132148.GA32078@2ka.mipt.ru> <1182459607.6096.31.camel@raj-laptop> <20070622095935.GA14207@2ka.mipt.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jamal , Krishna Kumar2 , Gagan Arneja , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Sridhar Samudrala , David Miller , Robert Olsson To: Evgeniy Polyakov Return-path: Received: from palrel10.hp.com ([156.153.255.245]:56261 "EHLO palrel10.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751343AbXFYRfV (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:35:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070622095935.GA14207@2ka.mipt.ru> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 02:00:07PM -0700, Rick Jones (rick.jones2@hp.com) wrote: > >>>Simple test included test -> desktop and vice versa traffic with 128 and >>>4096 block size in netperf-2.4.3 setup. >> >>Is that in conjunction with setting the test-specific -D to set >>TCP_NODELAY, or was Nagle left-on? If the latter, perhaps timing issues >>could be why the confidence intervals weren't hit since the relative >>batching of 128byte sends into larger segments is something of a race. > > > I used this parameters: > netperf -l 60 -H kano -t TCP_STREAM -i 10,2 -I 99,5 -- -m 128 -s 128K > -S 128K You can take -i up to 30 for the max count if you want to try to hit the levels. > > so without nodelay. > > With nodelay I've gotten: > batch-128: 128.91 mbit/sec > mainline-128: 140.57 mbit/sec > > which is about 5 times less than withouth nodelay (~760 mbit/s) > Although nodelay results look more realistic. all that fun send batching that happens without nodelay :) rick jones > > > >>rick jones > >