On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 01:18:59PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:16:49PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
...
ping takes a timestamp in userspace before trying to transmit
the packet, and the
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 01:18:59PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:16:49PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
...
> >ping takes a timestamp in userspace before trying to transmit
> >the packet, and then the timestamp for the received p
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:16:49PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 11.04.2012 13:00, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:35:10PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 11.04.2012 01:32, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
Things going through loopback go through a
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:16:49PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On 11.04.2012 13:00, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:35:10PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> >>On 11.04.2012 01:32, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 07:05:00PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
> CPU cac
On 11.04.2012 13:00, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:35:10PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 11.04.2012 01:32, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 07:05:00PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
CPU cache?
Cx states?
powerd?
powerd is disabled, and i am going down to C1 at most
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:35:10PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On 11.04.2012 01:32, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 07:05:00PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
> >>CPU cache?
> >>Cx states?
> >>powerd?
> >
> >powerd is disabled, and i am going down to C1 at most
> > > sysctl -a | g
On 11.04.2012 01:32, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 07:05:00PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
CPU cache?
Cx states?
powerd?
powerd is disabled, and i am going down to C1 at most
> sysctl -a | grep cx
hw.acpi.cpu.cx_lowest: C1
dev.cpu.0.cx_supported: C1/1 C2/80
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:09:48AM -0400, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
>
...
> > Apparently a ping -f has a much lower RTT than one with non-zero
> > delay between transmissions. Part of the story could be that
> > the flood version invokes a non-blocking select.
> > On the other hand, pinging on the l
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:52:57AM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> I noticed this first on a 10G interface, but now there seems
> to be a similar issue on the loopback.
>
> Apparently a ping -f has a much lower RTT than one with non-zero
> delay between transmissions. Part of the story could be that
CPU cache?
Cx states?
powerd?
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 03:40:27PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 4/10/12 3:52 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > I noticed this first on a 10G interface, but now there seems
> > to be a similar issue on the loopback.
> >
> > Apparently a ping -f has a much lower RTT than
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 07:05:00PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
> CPU cache?
> Cx states?
> powerd?
powerd is disabled, and i am going down to C1 at most
> sysctl -a | grep cx
hw.acpi.cpu.cx_lowest: C1
dev.cpu.0.cx_supported: C1/1 C2/80 C3/104
which shouldn't take so much. S
On 4/10/12 3:52 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
I noticed this first on a 10G interface, but now there seems
to be a similar issue on the loopback.
Apparently a ping -f has a much lower RTT than one with non-zero
delay between transmissions. Part of the story could be that
the flood version invokes a non
I noticed this first on a 10G interface, but now there seems
to be a similar issue on the loopback.
Apparently a ping -f has a much lower RTT than one with non-zero
delay between transmissions. Part of the story could be that
the flood version invokes a non-blocking select.
On the other hand, ping
13 matches
Mail list logo
