> In the last episode (Jul 12), Danny Braniss said:
> > [...]
> > > You might want to apply the patch at the bottom of
> > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/75122 ; without it, new
> > > connections get a random initial bandwidth.
> >
> > how far 'bottom' should i go?
>
> Search
In the last episode (Jul 12), David Malone said:
> > did the trick! now can someone remind me what inflight does? and
> > could someone explain why increasing sendspace alone did not do the
> > trick? (i had it at 64k, which got things better, but not
> > sufficient).
>
> TCP inflight limiting is
Hmm,
Recently I've also been seeing less than what I'd expect tcp throughput
on FreeBSD 5.4R machines. I've got six 5.4R boxes with dual Gigabit em
interfaces. netperf gives me:
Recv SendSend
Socket Socket Message Elapsed
Size SizeSize Tim
> > combining
> > sysctl net.inet.tcp.sendspace=131072
> > and
> > sysctl net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable=0
> >
> > did the trick!
>
> Congratulations! But I wonder why the throughput of FreeBSD=>Linux
> was almost equal to that of Linux=>FreeBSD. If the settings above
> improves the throug
(I am sorry if you have received this e-mail. I'm resending this
because it seems the previous one was lost.)
> TCP inflight limiting is supposed to guess the bandwidth-delay
> product for a TCP connection and stop the window expanding much
> above this.
(Just to clarify..)
TCP inflight limitin
> combining
> sysctl net.inet.tcp.sendspace=131072
> and
> sysctl net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable=0
>
> did the trick!
Congratulations! But I wonder why the throughput of FreeBSD=>Linux
was almost equal to that of Linux=>FreeBSD. If the settings above
improves the throughput of FreeBSD=
> did the trick! now can someone remind me what inflight does? and could
> someone explain why increasing sendspace alone did not do the trick?
> (i had it at 64k, which got things better, but not sufficient).
TCP inflight limiting is supposed to guess the bandwidth-delay
product for a TCP connect
> > > Are the window sizes on Linux bigger or smaller?
>
> > TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
> > smaller :-(, but increasing it does not make any change
>
> Hmmm... Various things that you could try (I'd try them
> one by on, rather than all together):
>
> 1) sysctl net.inet.tcp.inflight_e
> we need more data points -
> did you test tcp or udp ?
i used iperf:
Client connecting to x-dev, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 65.0 KByte (WARNING: requested 64.0 KByte)
> who is sourcing data ?
all, I tried all combinations, and the numbers are very similar to the
ones i posted
we need more data points -
did you test tcp or udp ?
who is sourcing data ?
are the bandwidth symmetric (i.e. A-> same as B -> A ?
cheers
luigi
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:21:13AM +0300, Danny Braniss wrote:
> while checking out the quality of a switch, I came about a very disturbing
> dicovery: F
while checking out the quality of a switch, I came about a very disturbing
dicovery: FreeBSD <-> Linux througput is MUCH better than FreeBSD <-> FreeBSD
Setup:
2 blades in the same bladeserver, A running FreeBSD 5.4, B running Linux
C is running FreeBSD 5.4
all are connecte
11 matches
Mail list logo
