On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:07:32 -0800 Tim Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 23:10 +0100, Olaf Kirch wrote: > > > > > In fixing performance issues, the most obvious explanation isn't always > > the right one. It's quite possible you're right, sure. > > > > What I'm saying though is that it doesn't rhyme with what I've seen of > > Volanomark - we ran 2.6.16 on a 4p Intel box for instance and it didn't > > come close to saturating a Gigabit pipe before it maxed out on CPU load. > > > > I am running Volanomark in a loopback mode on a 2P woodcrest box > (4 cores). So the configuration is a bit different. > > In my testing, the CPU utilization is at 100%. So > increase in ACKs will cost CPU to devote more > time to process those ACKs and reduce throughput. > > > > > You could count the number of outbound packets dropped on the server. > > > > As I'm running in loopback mode, there are no dropped packets. > Optimizing for loopback is perversion; perversion can be fun but it gets to be a obsession then it's sick. -- Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
