--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > I didn't refuse. I just chose to take help
> from
> > Ben, because Ben took the time to reproduce
> the
> > problem and to provide useful settings that
> made
> > sense to me. There's nothing wrong with my
> > machine.
>
> W
--- "Vladimir B. Savkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 11:08:43PM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > If your test is still set up, try compiling
> > something large while doing the test. The
> drops
> > go through the roof in my tests.
> >
> Couldn't this happen because ksof
Danial Thom wrote:
I didn't refuse. I just chose to take help from
Ben, because Ben took the time to reproduce the
problem and to provide useful settings that made
sense to me. There's nothing wrong with my
machine.
Well, I didn't see the slowdown on my system when I tried 2.6
v/s 2.4. You r
--- Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Danial Thom wrote:
> > >
> > > --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Danial Thom wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made
> > >>
> > >>tr
--- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:06:51AM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >...
> > I don't think I'm obligated to answer every
> > single person who pipes into a thread. People
> who
> > say "show me your config and dmesg" are not
> > useful. Linux has long ha
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:55:27AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> Of course. Never found a motherboard yet with decent built-in
> NICs. The built-ins on this board are tg3 and they must be on
> a slow bus, because they cannot go faster than about 700Mbps
> (using big pkts).
There should be a number
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:06:51AM -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
>...
> I don't think I'm obligated to answer every
> single person who pipes into a thread. People who
> say "show me your config and dmesg" are not
> useful. Linux has long had a philisophical
> problem of dropping packets as a "performa
--- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 08:34:14AM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >
> > --- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's not always true.
> > >
> > > Imagine a slow computer with a GBit
> ethernet
> > > connection, where the user
> > >
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 08:34:14AM -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
>
> --- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > That's not always true.
> >
> > Imagine a slow computer with a GBit ethernet
> > connection, where the user
> > is downloading files from a server that can
> > utilize the full
>
--- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:41:11AM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >...
> >
> > The issue I have with that logic is that you
> seem
> > to use "kernel" in a general sense without
> regard
> > to what its doing. Dropping packets is always
> > detrimenta
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:41:11AM -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
>...
>
> The issue I have with that logic is that you seem
> to use "kernel" in a general sense without regard
> to what its doing. Dropping packets is always
> detrimental to the user regardless of what he's
> using the computer for. An
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >
> > --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Danial Thom wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made
> >>
> >>trade
> >>
> >>>offs that lower raw throughput, which is
> what
> >>
> >>a
> >>
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > The tests I reported where on UP systems.
> Perhaps
> > the default settings are better for this in
> 2.4,
> > since that is what I used, and you used your
> > hacks for both.
>
> My modifications to the kernel are unlikely t
Danial Thom wrote:
The tests I reported where on UP systems. Perhaps
the default settings are better for this in 2.4,
since that is what I used, and you used your
hacks for both.
My modifications to the kernel are unlikely to speed anything
up, and probably will slow things down ever so slight
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >
> > --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Danial Thom wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made
> >>
> >>trade
> >>
> >>>offs that lower raw throughput, which is
> what
> >>
> >>a
> >>
Danial Thom wrote:
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made
trade
offs that lower raw throughput, which is what
a
networking device needs. So as a router or
network appliance, 2.6 seems less suitable. A
raw
bridging
Danial Thom wrote:
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made
trade
offs that lower raw throughput, which is what
a
networking device needs. So as a router or
network appliance, 2.6 seems less suitable. A
raw
bridging
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made
> trade
> > offs that lower raw throughput, which is what
> a
> > networking device needs. So as a router or
> > network appliance, 2.6 seems less suitable. A
> raw
> > bridging test
Danial Thom wrote:
I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made trade
offs that lower raw throughput, which is what a
networking device needs. So as a router or
network appliance, 2.6 seems less suitable. A raw
bridging test on a 2.0Ghz operton system:
FreeBSD 4.9: Drops no packets at 900K pps
Li
--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/24/05, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > --- Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Danial Thom wrote:
> > > > I think part of the problem is the
> continued
> > > > misuse of the word "latency". Latency, in
> > > > lang
--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>If you have preemtion enabled you could
> > > disable
> > > >>it. Low latency comes
> > > >>at the cost of decreased throughput -
> can't
> > > >>have both. Also try using
> > > >>a HZ of 100 if you are currently using
> 1000,
> > > >>that shoul
--- Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > None of this is helpful, but since no one has
> > been able to tell me how to tune it to
> provide
> > absolute priority to the network stack I'll
> > assume it can't be done.
>
> The network stack already has priority over
On 8/24/05, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Danial Thom wrote:
> > > I think part of the problem is the continued
> > > misuse of the word "latency". Latency, in
> > > language terms, means "unexplained delay".
> > Its
> > > wrong here
--- Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 13:10 -0700, Danial Thom
> wrote:
> >
> > None of this is helpful, but since no one has
> > been able to tell me how to tune it to
> provide
> > absolute priority to the network stack I'll
> > assume it can't be done.
--- Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > I think part of the problem is the continued
> > misuse of the word "latency". Latency, in
> > language terms, means "unexplained delay".
> Its
> > wrong here because for one, its explainable.
> But
> > it also depends on your
Patrick McHardy wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
None of this is helpful, but since no one has
been able to tell me how to tune it to provide
absolute priority to the network stack I'll
assume it can't be done.
The network stack already has priority over user processes,
except when executed in proc
> > >>If you have preemtion enabled you could
> > disable
> > >>it. Low latency comes
> > >>at the cost of decreased throughput - can't
> > >>have both. Also try using
> > >>a HZ of 100 if you are currently using 1000,
> > >>that should also improve
> > >>throughput a little at the cost of slightly
Danial Thom wrote:
> None of this is helpful, but since no one has
> been able to tell me how to tune it to provide
> absolute priority to the network stack I'll
> assume it can't be done.
The network stack already has priority over user processes,
except when executed in process context, so preem
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 13:10 -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
>
> None of this is helpful, but since no one has
> been able to tell me how to tune it to provide
> absolute priority to the network stack I'll
> assume it can't be done.
History has proven that camp wrong almost 100% of the time.
You were t
--- Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 10:10 -0700, Danial Thom
> wrote:
> >
>
> > > >Ok, well you'll have to explain this one:
> > > >
> > > >"Low latency comes at the cost of
> decreased
> > > >throughput - can't have both"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Confi
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 10:10 -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
>
> > >Ok, well you'll have to explain this one:
> > >
> > >"Low latency comes at the cost of decreased
> > >throughput - can't have both"
> > >
> > >
> > Configuring "preempt" gives lower latency,
> > because then
> > almost anything can be
Danial Thom wrote:
> I think part of the problem is the continued
> misuse of the word "latency". Latency, in
> language terms, means "unexplained delay". Its
> wrong here because for one, its explainable. But
> it also depends on your perspective. The
> "latency" is increased for kernel tasks, whi
--- Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
>
> >--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>On 8/21/05, Danial Thom
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and
> >>>
> >>>
> >>there
> >>
> >>
> >>
Danial Thom wrote:
--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/21/05, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and
there
seems to be a big drop-off in performance
from
2.4.x in terms of networking on a
uniproce
On Sunday 21 August 2005 23:21, Danial Thom wrote:
> > You problem could very well be something else
> > entirely, but try a
> > kernel build with PREEMPT_NONE and HZ=100 and
> > see if it makes a big
> > difference (or if that's your current config,
> > then try the opposite,
> > HZ=1000 and PREEM
*confused by the top-posting..*
--- Luigi Genoni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> maybe it is possible to be more clear.
>
> voluntary kernel preemption adds explicit
> preemption points into the
> kernel and full kernel preemption makes all
> kernel code preemptible. This
> way even when a process
--- Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and
> there
> > seems to be a big drop-off in performance
> from
> > 2.4.x in terms of networking on a
> uniprocessor
> > system. Just bridging packets through the
> > machine, 2.6.12 sta
--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/21/05, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and
> there
> > seems to be a big drop-off in performance
> from
> > 2.4.x in terms of networking on a
> uniprocessor
> > system. Just bridging packets through
--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/21/05, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and
> there
> > seems to be a big drop-off in performance
> from
> > 2.4.x in terms of networking on a
> uniprocessor
> > system. Just bridging packets through
Danial Thom wrote:
--- Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you have netfilter enabled? Briging
netfilter was
added in 2.6, enabling it will influence
performance
negatively. Otherwise, is this performance drop
visible in other setups besides bridging as
well?
Yes, bridging is clean
Danial Thom wrote:
I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and there
seems to be a big drop-off in performance from
2.4.x in terms of networking on a uniprocessor
system. Just bridging packets through the
machine, 2.6.12 starts dropping packets at
~100Kpps, whereas 2.4.x doesn't start dropping
until
On 8/21/05, Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 8/21/05, Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > On 8/21/05, Danial Thom
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > Ok, well you'll have to explain this one:
> > > >
> > >
Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and there
> seems to be a big drop-off in performance from
> 2.4.x in terms of networking on a uniprocessor
> system. Just bridging packets through the
> machine, 2.6.12 starts dropping packets at
> ~100Kpps, whereas 2.
--- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/21/05, Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On 8/21/05, Danial Thom
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > Ok, well you'll have to explain this one:
> > >
> > > "Low latency comes at the cost of decreased
> > > throughput - can't have
I just started fiddling with 2.6.12, and there
seems to be a big drop-off in performance from
2.4.x in terms of networking on a uniprocessor
system. Just bridging packets through the
machine, 2.6.12 starts dropping packets at
~100Kpps, whereas 2.4.x doesn't start dropping
until over 350Kpps on the
45 matches
Mail list logo
