On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:42:41PM -0700, Rick Jones wrote: > On 07/16/2012 12:06 PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > >On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:27:57AM -0700, Rick Jones wrote: > > > >>What is the effect on packet-per-second performance? (eg aggregate, > >>burst-mode netperf TCP_RR with TCP_NODELAY set or perhaps UDP_RR) > >> > >I used uperf with TCP_NODELAY and 16 threads sending from another > >machine 64000-sized writes for 60 seconds. > > > >I get 5898op/s (3.02Gb/s) without the patch against 18022ops/s > >(9.23Gb/s) with the patch. > > I was thinking more along the lines of an additional comparison, > explicitly using netperf TCP_RR or something like it, not just the > packets per second from a bulk transfer test. > > rick > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
I used a uperf profile that is similar to TCP_RR. It writes, then reads some bytes. I kept the TCP_NODELAY flag. Without the patch, I saw the following: packet size ops/s Gb/s 1 337024 0.0027 90 276620 0.199 900 190455 1.37 4000 68863 2.20 9000 45638 3.29 60000 9409 4.52 With the patch: packet size ops/s Gb/s 1 451738 0.0036 90 345682 0.248 900 272258 1.96 4000 127055 4.07 9000 106614 7.68 60000 30671 14.72 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
