Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Richard Sharpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011130 15:02] wrote: >>The traffic in the tbench case is SMB taffic. Request/response, with a
>>mixture of small requests and responses, and big request/small response >>or small request/big response, where big is 64K. >> >> >>I have switched off newreno, and it made no difference. I have switched >>off delayed_ack, and it reduced performance about 5 percent. I have made >>sure that SO_SNDBUF and SO_RCVBUF were set to 131072 (which seems to be >>the max), and it increased performance marginally (like about 2%), but >>consistently. >> >>I am still analysing the packet traces I have, but it seems to me that >>the crucial difference is Linux seems to delay longer before sending >>ACKs, and thus sends less ACKs. Since the ACK is piggybacked in the >>response (or the next request), it all works fine, and the >>reponse/request gets there sooner. >> >>However, I have not convinced myself that the saving of 20uS or so per >>request/response pair accounts for some 40+ Mb/s. >> > Can you try these two commands: > > sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.recvspace=65536 > sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.sendspace=65536 Yes, that is what I did ... -- Richard Sharpe, [EMAIL PROTECTED], LPIC-1 www.samba.org, www.ethereal.com, SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours, Special Edition, Using Samba To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
