--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > I didn't refuse. I just chose to take help
> from
> > Ben, because Ben took the time to reproduce
> the
> > problem and to provide useful settings that
> made
> > sens
--- "Vladimir B. Savkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 11:08:43PM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > If your test is still set up, try compiling
> > something large while doing the test. The
> drops
> > go through the roof in my
--- Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Danial Thom wrote:
> > >
> > > --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
--- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:06:51AM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >...
> > I don't think I'm obligated to answer every
> > single person who pipes into a thread. People
> who
> > say "show me you
--- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 08:34:14AM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >
> > --- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's not always true.
> > >
> > > Imagine
--- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:41:11AM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >...
> >
> > The issue I have with that logic is that you
> seem
> > to use "kernel" in a general sense without
> rega
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >
> > --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Danial Thom wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made
&g
--- Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 14:44 -0400, Lee Revell
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 14:20 -0400, Michael
> Krufky wrote:
> > > Todd Bailey wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm all for this but I think there is
> little uncle George can do.
> > >
> > > Was it necess
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > The tests I reported where on UP systems.
> Perhaps
> > the default settings are better for this in
> 2.4,
> > since that is what I used, and you used your
> > hacks for both.
>
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >
> > --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Danial Thom wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made
&g
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made
> trade
> > offs that lower raw throughput, which is what
> a
> > networking device needs. So as a router or
> > network appliance, 2.6 seem
--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/24/05, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > --- Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Danial Thom wrote:
> > > > I think part of the problem is the
>
--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>If you have preemtion enabled you could
> > > disable
> > > >>it. Low latency comes
> > > >>at the cost of decreased throughput -
> can't
> > > >>have both. Also try using
> > > >>a HZ of 100 if you are currently using
> 1000,
> > > >>that shoul
--- Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > None of this is helpful, but since no one has
> > been able to tell me how to tune it to
> provide
> > absolute priority to the network stack I'll
> > assume it can't be don
--- Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 13:10 -0700, Danial Thom
> wrote:
> >
> > None of this is helpful, but since no one has
> > been able to tell me how to tune it to
> provide
> > absolute priority to the network
--- Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > I think part of the problem is the continued
> > misuse of the word "latency". Latency, in
> > language terms, means "unexplained delay".
> Its
> > wrong here becaus
--- Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 10:10 -0700, Danial Thom
> wrote:
> >
>
> > > >Ok, well you'll have to explain this one:
> > > >
> > > >"Low latency c
--- Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
>
> >--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>On 8/21/05, Danial Thom
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>wrote:
> >>
the lost
> is connected to the number to interrupts you
> have to manage.
>
> The point is that a desktop where the users
> simple need a smooth sysstem
> to be userd interactivelly, but not real CPU
> power, and a server where you
> need hourse power are different to
--- Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and
> there
> > seems to be a big drop-off in performance
> from
> > 2.4.x in terms of networking on a
> uniprocessor
> > system. Just bridgi
--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/21/05, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and
> there
> > seems to be a big drop-off in performance
> from
> > 2.4.x in terms of networking on a
> u
--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/21/05, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and
> there
> > seems to be a big drop-off in performance
> from
> > 2.4.x in terms of networking on a
> u
--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/21/05, Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On 8/21/05, Danial Thom
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > Ok, well you'll have to explain this one:
> > >
> &
I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and there
seems to be a big drop-off in performance from
2.4.x in terms of networking on a uniprocessor
system. Just bridging packets through the
machine, 2.6.12 starts dropping packets at
~100Kpps, whereas 2.4.x doesn't start dropping
until over 350Kpps on the
24 matches
Mail list logo
