From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932368AbVHWUWW (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:22:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932369AbVHWUWW (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:22:22 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:52727 "EHLO av.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932368AbVHWUWV (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:22:21 -0400 Subject: Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems From: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich To: danial_thom@yahoo.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20050823201004.77101.qmail@web33310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050823201004.77101.qmail@web33310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:22:16 -0700 Message-Id: <1124828536.15265.160.camel@imap.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 stack I'll > assume it can't be done. History has proven that camp wrong almost 100% of the time. You were told to turn off kernel preemption. A diligent comparison requires that, since 2.4 does not support kernel preemption, and a fair comparison requires holding all other things constant. In addition, there were several IP-level features mentioned in emails, that have been added to 2.6. You need to make sure those are all off by default, to keep your comparison relevant. All the answers are before you, review those emails, turn all that stuff off and retest.