On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Ion Badulescu wrote: > > 750MHz PIII, Adaptec Starfire NIC, driver modified to use hardware sg+csum > (both Tx/Rx), and Intel i82559 (eepro100), no hardware csum support, > vanilla driver. > > The box has 512MB of RAM, and I'm using a 100MB file, so it's entirely cached. > > starfire: > 2.4.1-pre10+zerocopy, using sendfile(): 9.6% CPU > 2.4.1-pre10+zerocopy, using read()/write(): 18.3%-29.6% CPU * why so much >variance? > What are your throughput numbers? Could you also, please, test using: http://www.cyberus.ca/~hadi/ttcp-sf.tar.gz post both sender and receiver data. Repeat each test about 5 times. cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (noth... David Lang
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy ... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... David Lang
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... David Lang
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... Jeff Barrow
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... David S. Miller
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly s... James Sutherland
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with EC... Ion Badulescu
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do wi... Andrew Morton
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do wi... jamal
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to d... Ion Badulescu
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing ... jamal
- Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (noth... Ion Badulescu
- Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zeroc... jamal
- Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfi... Ingo Molnar
- Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfi... jamal
- Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfi... Ingo Molnar
- Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfi... jamal
- Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfi... Malcolm Beattie
- Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfi... Ingo Molnar