On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:07:36AM -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
>There should be three basic measures there - one is the single-instance
>request-response test. The idea is to see minimum latency. That test
>likes to see the interrupt throttle rate made very high, or disabled
>completely.
>
>The ag
but clearly I should be using netperf to get more accurate cpu numbers
and a more convincing aggregate table :-)
Well, I'll not stop you :)
It is a bit rough/messy as a writeup, but here is what I've seen wrt the
latency vs throughput tradeoffs:
ftp://ftp.cup.hp.com/dist/networking/bri
Hi Rick,
thanks for your comments.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 03:26:17PM -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
>Robin Humble wrote:
>>attached is a small patch for e1000 that dynamically changes Interrupt
>>Throttle Rate for best performance - both latency and bandwidth.
>>it makes e1000 look really good on net
Robin Humble wrote:
[I sent this to the e1000-devel folks, and they suggested netdev might
have opinions too. the below text has changed a little bit to reflect
feedback from Auke Kok]
attached is a small patch for e1000 that dynamically changes Interrupt
Throttle Rate for best performance - b
[I sent this to the e1000-devel folks, and they suggested netdev might
have opinions too. the below text has changed a little bit to reflect
feedback from Auke Kok]
attached is a small patch for e1000 that dynamically changes Interrupt
Throttle Rate for best performance - both latency and bandw
