From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 09:11:05 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <52305571.1031303463@[10.10.2.3]> References: <3D78CBF6.10609@us.ibm.com> Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , hadi@cyberus.ca, tcw@tempest.prismnet.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, niv@us.ibm.com Return-path: To: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <3D78CBF6.10609@us.ibm.com> Content-Disposition: inline Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > No, no. Bad Martin! Throughput didn't drop, "Specweb compliance" > dropped. Those are two very, very different things. I've found > that the server can produce a lot more throughput, although it > doesn't have the characteristics that Specweb considers compliant. > Just have Troy enable mod-status and look at the throughput that > Apache tells you that it is giving during a run. _That_ is real > throughput, not number of compliant connections. By throughput I meant number of compliant connections, not bandwidth. It may well be latency that's going out the window, rather than bandwidth. Yes, I should use more precise terms ... > _And_ NAPI is for receive only, right? Also, my compliance drop > occurs with the NAPI checkbox disabled. There is something else > in the new driver that causes our problems. Not sure about that - I was told once that there were transmission completion interrupts as well? What happens to those? Or am I confused again ... M.