From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:27:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:27:21 -0500 Received: from oxmail2.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.1]:28874 "EHLO oxmail.ox.ac.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:27:11 -0500 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:26:54 +0000 From: Malcolm Beattie To: "David S. Miller" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [UPDATE] Fresh zerocopy patch on kernel.org Message-ID: <20010131152653.C13345@sable.ox.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <14966.35438.429963.405587@pizda.ninka.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <14966.35438.429963.405587@pizda.ninka.net>; from davem@redhat.com on Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 01:33:34AM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David S. Miller writes: > > At the usual place: > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/davem/zerocopy-2.4.1-1.diff.gz Hmm, disappointing results here; maybe I've missed something. Setup is a Pentium II 350MHz (tusk) connected to a Pentium III 733MHz (heffalump) (both 512MB RAM) with SX fibre, each with a 3Com 3C985 NIC. Kernels compared are 2.4.1 and 2.4.1+zc (the 2.4.1-1 diff above) using acenic driver with MTU set to 9000. Sysctls set are # Raise socket buffer limits net.core.rmem_max = 262144 net.core.wmem_max = 262144 # Increase TCP write memory net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 100000 100000 100000 on both sides. Comparison tests done were gensink4: 10485760 (10MB) buffer size, 262144 (256K) socket buffer ftp: server does sendfile() from a 300MB file in page cache, client does read from socket/write to /dev/null in 4K chunks. 2.4.1 2.4.1+zc KByte/s tusk%CPU heff%CPU KByte/s tusk%CPU heff%CPU gensink4 tusk->heffalump 94000 58-100 93 54000 98-102 11-45 heffalump->tusk 72000 86-100 46-59 70000 71-93 53-71 2.4.1 2.4.1+zc KByte/s KByte/s ftp heffalump->tusk 86000 62000 I was impressed with the raw 2.4.1 figures and hoped to be even more impressed with the 2.4.1+zc numbers. Is there something I'm missing or can change or do to help to improve matters or track down potential problems? --Malcolm -- Malcolm Beattie Unix Systems Programmer Oxford University Computing Services - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/