On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, jamal wrote: > Kernel | tput | sender-CPU | receiver-CPU | > ------------------------------------------------- > 2.4.0-pre3 | 99MB/s | 87% | 23% | > NSF | | | | > ------------------------------------------------- > 2.4.0-pre3 | 68 | 8% | 8% | > +ZC SF | MB/s | | | > ------------------------------------------------- isnt the CPU utilization difference amazing? :-) a couple of questions: - is this UDP or TCP based? (UDP i guess) - what wsize/rsize are you using? How do these requests look like on the network, ie. are they suffieciently MTU-sized? - what happens if you run multiple instances of the testcode, does it saturate bandwidth (or CPU)? Ingo - 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 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
- Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfi... Rick Jones
- Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfi... jamal
- Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfi... Rick Jones
- Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfi... jamal
- Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfi... David S. Miller