From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: netperf and endianness Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:16:14 -0700 Message-ID: <4FD1525E.5020707@hp.com> References: <20120607.180948.471478622905736125.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from g1t0028.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.35]:34951 "EHLO g1t0028.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759498Ab2FHBQT (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:16:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120607.180948.471478622905736125.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/07/2012 06:09 PM, David Miller wrote: > > Rick, I tried to use netperf between my x86-64 and sparc64 systems and > nothing works. > > Does netperf do it's messaging in cpu byte order only? > > I don't see anything in netperf-2.5.x that translates into and out of > network byte order :-/ David - netperf sends things in network byte order. It is all burried in send/recv_request and send/recv_response (in src/netlib.c). Over the years I've run netperf between different endian systems with success. Chances are good that there is a netperf version mismatch between the sides - at least 99 times out of 10 that is what is happening when netperf doesn't work (other than with firewalls in place). happy benchmarking, rick jones