From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: Fwd: UDP/IPv6 performance issue Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:24:02 -0800 Message-ID: <52A74E32.4040900@hp.com> References: <52A749CB.1010909@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ajay seshadri , netdev Return-path: Received: from g6t0184.atlanta.hp.com ([15.193.32.61]:46173 "EHLO g6t0184.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752892Ab3LJRYE (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:24:04 -0500 In-Reply-To: <52A749CB.1010909@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/10/2013 09:05 AM, Rick Jones wrote: > If you want to compare the "fundamental" path length difference between > IPv4 and IPv6, without any concerns about stateless offloads like CKO or > GRO et al, you could use something like a single-byte netperf TCP_RR test. > > netperf -c -C -H -t TCP_RR Or UDP_RR, since that is your usage case... rick > > and then compare service demands between the two cases. You can add a > "-i 30,3" to have netperf run several iterations to get a better idea of > how close it is to the "real" mean result. > > happy benchmarking, > > rick jones > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html