Rick Jones wrote:
If I read the results right it took a 32bit machine from AMD with
a gigabit interface before you could measure a throughput difference.
That isn't shabby for a non-optimized code path.
Just some paranoid ramblings - one needs to look beyond just whether
or not the performance of a bulk transfer test (eg TCP_STREAM) remains
able to hit link-rate. One has to also consider the change in service
demand (the normalization of CPU util and throughput). Also, with
functionality like TSO in place, the ability to pass very large things
down the stack can help cover for a multitude of path-length sins.
And with either multiple 1G or 10G NICs becoming more and more
prevalent, we have another one of those "NIC speed vs CPU speed"
switch-overs, so maintaining single-NIC 1 gigabit throughput, while
necessary, isn't (IMO) sufficient.
Soooo, it becomes very important to go beyond just TCP_STREAM tests
when evaluating these sorts of things. Another test to run would be
the TCP_RR test. TCP_RR with single-byte request/response sizes will
"bypass" the TSO stuff, and the transaction rate will be more directly
affected by the change in path length than a TCP_STREAM test. It will
also show-up quite clearly in the service demand. Now, with NICs
doing interrupt coalescing, if the NIC is strapped "poorly" (IMO) then
you may not see a change in transaction rate - it may be getting
limited artifically by the NIC's interrupt coalescing. So, one has to
fall-back on service demand, or better yet, disable the interrupt
coalescing.
Otherwise, measuring peak aggregate request/response becomes necessary.
rick jones
don't be blinded by bit-rate
Thanks Rick,
Do you have any pointer to help on benchmarking the network, perhaps a
checklist or some scripts for netperf ?
Regards.
-- Daniel
-
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
