Jeff> (side note: it would seem IPoIB could be re-written to Jeff> dramatically improve it's performance).
Out of curiousity, what would the rewrite change to obtain better performance?
I'm just speculating that it could be rewritten to improve performance. There were many complaints in the past about the speed of IPoIB; I thought that was still the case. Maybe the performance has increased and I have my systems misconfigured.
In any case between my two hosts with netperf:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# netperf -H foxtrot -- -s 105472 -r 105472 TCP STREAM TEST to foxtrot Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
87380 210944 210944 10.00 2335.21
with vmstat on the server showing:
-----memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- ----cpu---- swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 0 1115720 440988 49836 0 0 0 0 43943 8251 0 94 6 0 0 1115720 440988 49836 0 0 0 0 43725 8384 0 94 6 0
So the CPU is throttled at around 100-200k packets/sec with 43k interrupts / sec. Perhaps the HCA can be configured to respond/trigger events/generate interrupts less often under higher load. Some ethernet chips have this kind of functionality (interrupt after x packets or after n time).
Jeff
_______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
