One more thing to remember is to raise the socket size on the linux
sender. I found that I got very poor tx performance on linux running
netperf without making the socket buffers fairy large.
-Kip
On 5/21/07, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Summary: Using iperf to measure TCP net speed b
Wilkinson, Alex wrote:
0n Mon, May 21, 2007 at 07:39:06PM +0100, Tom Judge wrote:
> I have also seen 700Mb/s sustained FreeBSD - FreeBSD using the openssh HPN
> patch set and no extra tuning of the network stack. Which makes me
> think that maybe the linux stack needs some tun
0n Mon, May 21, 2007 at 07:39:06PM +0100, Tom Judge wrote:
> I have also seen 700Mb/s sustained FreeBSD - FreeBSD using the openssh HPN
> patch set and no extra tuning of the network stack. Which makes me
> think that maybe the linux stack needs some tuning?
What is the "HPN pa
Tom Judge wrote:
> Have you tried upping the MTU, that is if the cards and switch you are
> using support it. I have seen significant speed increases (FreeBSD -
> FreeBSD) in some scenario's twice the through put with an MTU of 8192.
>
> I have also seen 700Mb/s sustained FreeBSD - FreeBSD using t
root wrote:
Summary: Using iperf to measure TCP net speed between a linux and
freebsd box over gigE, I see significant speed difference depending on
the data direction. Pushing data from the freebsd box to the linux box,
I average about 500Gb/s. Pushing data from the linux box to the freebsd
b
- Original message -
Summary: Using iperf to measure TCP net speed between...
This is not terribly surprising rx is currently a more expensive
operation than tx on FreeBSD. My testing on 10GigE indicates that
there is ample room for improvement.
-Kip
On 5/21/07, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
