On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> IXIA ? For the timescales we need to address we don't need an IXIA,
> a netmap sender is more than enough
>
The great netmap generates only one IP flow (same src/dst IP and same
src/dst port).
This don't permit to test multi-queue NIC (or SM
On Saturday, September 14, 2013, Olivier Cochard-Labbé
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>>
>> IXIA ? For the timescales we need to address we don't need an IXIA,
>> a netmap sender is more than enough
>>
>
> The great netmap generates only one IP flow (same src/dst IP
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:08:27AM -0400, George Neville-Neil wrote:
>
> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:49 , Adrian Chadd wrote:
...
> One quick note here. Every time you increase batching you may increase
> bandwidth
> but you will also increase per packet latency for the last packet in a batch.
The o
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:08:27AM -0400, George Neville-Neil wrote:
>
> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:49 , Adrian Chadd wrote:
...
> > I still have some tool coding to do with PMC before I even think about
> > tinkering with this as I'd like to measure stuff like per-packet latency as
> > well as top-le
On 9/14/13 9:21 AM, "Warner Losh" wrote:
>
>On Sep 14, 2013, at 2:44 AM, Anuranjan Shukla wrote:
>> At Juniper Networks, interface name size was needed to be longer than
>>what FreeBSD has. We're trying to reduce our local changes to FreeBSD to
>>allow us an easier time upgrading to newer FreeBSD
On Sep 14, 2013, at 2:44 AM, Anuranjan Shukla wrote:
> At Juniper Networks, interface name size was needed to be longer than what
> FreeBSD has. We're trying to reduce our local changes to FreeBSD to allow us
> an easier time upgrading to newer FreeBSD releases, and support the
> modularization
Hi!
Is there any particular reason (performance, stability concerns...)
IPSEC support is not enabled in GENERIC?
In Debian GNU/kFreeBSD we're considering enabling it in our default
builds, due to increased user demand and as it is already enabled for
our Linux-based flavours.
However we're conc
On 13 September 2013 15:43, Rick Macklem wrote:
> And any time you increase latency, that will have a negative impact on
> NFS performance. NFS RPCs are usually small messages (except Write requests
> and Read replies) and the RTT for these (mostly small, bidirectional)
> messages can have a sig
Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
> >
>
> > And any time you increase latency, that will have a negative impact
> > on
> > NFS performance. NFS RPCs are usually small messages (except Write
> > requests
> > and Read replies) and the RTT for these (mostly small,
> > bidirectional)
> > messages can have a sign
>
> And any time you increase latency, that will have a negative impact on
> NFS performance. NFS RPCs are usually small messages (except Write requests
> and Read replies) and the RTT for these (mostly small, bidirectional)
> messages can have a significant impact on NFS perf.
>
> rick
>
>
this m
Hi,
At Juniper Networks, interface name size was needed to be longer than what
FreeBSD has. We're trying to reduce our local changes to FreeBSD to allow us an
easier time upgrading to newer FreeBSD releases, and support the modularization
of the network stack we'd proposed earlier. I'm sending t
11 matches
Mail list logo
