Petri Helenius wrote: >>The 900Mbps are similar to what I see here on similar hardware. > > What kind of receive performance do you observe? I haven´t got that > far yet.
Less :-) Let me tell you tomorrow, don't have the numbers here right now. > 600Mbps per interface. I´m going to try this out also on -CURRENT > to see if it changes anything. Interrupts do not seem to pose a big > problem because I´m seeing only a few thousand em interrupts > a second but since every packet involves a write call there are >100k > syscalls a second. So maybe syscalls/second are the bottleneck. On -current, try enabling zero copy sockets, it seems to help somewhat. Other than that, I've not found -current to be much different in terms of performance. If you're just interested in maxing throughput, try sending over TCP with large write sizes. In that case, syscall overhead is less, since you amortize it over multiple packets. (But there are different issues that can limit TCP throughput.) > I´ll try changing the packet sizes to figure out optimum. I think I remember that 4K packets were fastest with the em hardware in our case. Lars -- Lars Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> USC Information Sciences Institute
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
