i mean doubt, shouldn't do mailing before the first coffee :)))
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:13 AM, István wrote:
> i see
> but there was no debt that it is possible. at least from my side :_)
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>> 2009/10/20 István :
>>
>>
>> > therefore
i see
but there was no debt that it is possible. at least from my side :_)
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> 2009/10/20 István :
>
>
> > therefore i like netpipe runs you can see the performance and the latency
> as
> > well using the packet size as your "x" axis, i think it
re of
AMD if anything, but their NICs rock.)
P.
From: Adrian Chadd
To: István
Cc: Hongtao Yin ; freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Brent
Jones
Sent: Mon, October 19, 2009 10:39:53 PM
Subject: Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance
2009/10/20
2009/10/20 István :
> therefore i like netpipe runs you can see the performance and the latency as
> well using the packet size as your "x" axis, i think it makes more sense
> then just 1 number
My point was to demonstrate that saturating gigabit ethernet is very
doable with FreeBSD, and his lim
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> uhm:
>
> kristy# netperf -H 192.168.10.2 -p 22113 -l 10
> TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.10.2
> (192.168.10.2) port 0 AF_INET
> Recv SendSend
> Socket Socket Message Elapsed
> Size SizeSize
2009 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance
Steven Hartland wrote:
Try with something like this, which is the standard set we use on our
file serving machines.
net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable=0
net.inet.tcp.sendspace=65536
kern.ipc.maxsockbu
Steven Hartland wrote:
Try with something like this, which is the standard set we use on our
file serving machines.
net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable=0
net.inet.tcp.sendspace=65536
kern.ipc.maxsockbuf=16777216
net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_max=16777216
net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_max=16777216
16 MB network buffers
Chuck Swiger wrote:
Hi, Steve--
On Oct 17, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Steve Dong wrote:
If there's a better/lighter way to show these graphics, I'd like to know.
Sure-- put 'em on a webserver somewhere, and put links to them in your
email to this mailing list.
If you wanted to do even better than t
Steve Dong wrote:
It looks the jpeg attachments were somehow dropped. Trying again with pdf
attachment. Hopefully it works this time.
Hi,
I haven't tried comparing this sort of performance with Linux so your
conclusion still might be right, but the fact that you couldn't saturate
1 Gbps on
-
From: "Adrian Chadd"
To: "Brent Jones"
Cc: "Hongtao Yin" ;
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance
uhm:
kristy# netperf -H 192.168.10.2 -p 22113 -l 10
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0)
uhm:
kristy# netperf -H 192.168.10.2 -p 22113 -l 10
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.10.2
(192.168.10.2) port 0 AF_INET
Recv SendSend
Socket Socket Message Elapsed
Size SizeSize Time Throughput
bytes bytes bytessecs.10^6bits/sec
8
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> FYI, I installed netperf on my local p4-D test boxes that I use for
> other testing.
>
> 128 byte send/receive buffers on the client side:
>
> kristy# netperf -H 192.168.10.2 -p 22113 -l 10
> TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_IN
FYI, I installed netperf on my local p4-D test boxes that I use for
other testing.
128 byte send/receive buffers on the client side:
kristy# netperf -H 192.168.10.2 -p 22113 -l 10
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.10.2
(192.168.10.2) port 0 AF_INET
Recv SendSe
Hi,
Trying to chime in with a few pointers here. Things to check when
doing a TCP benchmark on FreeBSD.
In particular make sure to adjust theses:
net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_max: 262144
net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_inc: 16384
net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_auto: 1
net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_max: 262144
net.inet.tcp.send
Hi, Steve--
On Oct 17, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Steve Dong wrote:
If there's a better/lighter way to show these graphics, I'd like to
know.
Sure-- put 'em on a webserver somewhere, and put links to them in your
email to this mailing list.
If you wanted to do even better than that, set up a simpl
ve Dong
Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance
Steve Dong wrote:
>
> It looks the jpeg attachments were somehow dropped. Trying again with
> pdf attachment. Hopefully it works this time.
Really. Don't post attachments
István wrote:
> I guess it is not only for netpipe, it is doing a pretty decent job changing
> the packet size checking the performance so finally you have an overview
> about the size, lag, bw
>
> I like! :)
>
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>> 2009/10/16 István :
>>>
I guess it is not only for netpipe, it is doing a pretty decent job changing
the packet size checking the performance so finally you have an overview
about the size, lag, bw
I like! :)
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> 2009/10/16 István :
> > I see.
> > It shows that linux
2009/10/16 István :
> I see.
> It shows that linux default setup is better.
.. being completely correct, it shows the linux default setup _for
netpipe_ is better on that particular hardware.
That identifies a few other variables which may need addressing. :)
Adrian
_
10月15日 5:13
To: Hongtao Yin
Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance
use netpipe TCP pls.
And graph it.
Thanks in advance,
Istvan
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Hongtao Yin wrote:
Hi,
I compared TCP performance
Hongtao Yin writes:
I ran newer FreeBSD code 8.0 RC1 this time. By using NetPIPE, we collected
Check
man tuning
There are a few parameters there worth exploring.
For example check the section on net.inet.tcp.sendspace and
net.inet.tcp.recvspace
__
] On Behalf Of Hongtao Yin
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:52 PM
> To: 'István'
> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
> Subject: RE: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance
>
> Istvan,
>
>
>
> I ran newer FreeBSD code 8.0 RC1 this time. By usin
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* István [mailto:lecc...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 2009年10月15日 5:13
>
> *To:* Hongtao Yin
> *Cc:* freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
> *Subject:* Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance
>
>
&
> Really. Don't post attachments to mailing lists. It's just a bad idea,
> a lot of people will be upset with the bandwidth it consumes. Keep in
> mind that not everyone on the list is interested in every conversation.
Disclaimers should go the same way too! :)
echo "
*
Steve Dong wrote:
>
> It looks the jpeg attachments were somehow dropped. Trying again with pdf
> attachment. Hopefully it works this time.
Really. Don't post attachments to mailing lists. It's just a bad idea,
a lot of people will be upset with the bandwidth it consumes. Keep in
mind that no
On Oct 16, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Steve Dong wrote:
It looks the jpeg attachments were somehow dropped. Trying again
with pdf
attachment. Hopefully it works this time.
*I* saw two jpeg charts at the very bottom of Steve's top-posted
reply. This demonstrates just one of many evils of top-post
c: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Subject: RE: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance
Istvan,
I ran newer FreeBSD code 8.0 RC1 this time. By using NetPIPE, we collected
test data and the result shows that FreeBSD TCP performance is worse than
Linux. I got troubles to plot using gnuplot,
: #NPtcp
PC1: #NPtcp �Ch 192.168.1.20
Regards,
Hongtao
_
From: István [mailto:lecc...@gmail.com]
Sent: 2009年10月15日 5:13
To: Hongtao Yin
Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance
use netpipe TCP pls.
And graph it
[mailto:owner-freebsd-performa...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Chadd
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:55 PM
To: Hongtao Yin
Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Comparison of FreeBSD/Linux TCP Throughput performance
2009/10/15 Hongtao Yin :
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I compared TCP perf
2009/10/15 Hongtao Yin :
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I compared TCP performance between FreeBSD and Linux by running test tools
> Netperf and Iperf with Intel NIC.
Did you compare syscalls made and time taken?
For example, do either/both of them do a lot of gettimeofday() calls?
FreeBSD and Linux have (had?) d
use netpipe TCP pls.
And graph it.
Thanks in advance,
Istvan
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Hongtao Yin wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I compared TCP performance between FreeBSD and Linux by running test tools
> Netperf and Iperf with Intel NIC.
>
> The kernels are full version and default values are u
Hongtao Yin wrote:
Hi,
I compared TCP performance between FreeBSD and Linux by running test tools
Netperf and Iperf with Intel NIC.
The kernels are full version and default values are used in the testing
except TCP Congestion Control algorithm set to Reno.
From the test results we can s
32 matches
Mail list logo
