On 2012-08-05, Kapeatanakis Giannis wrote:
> On 05/08/12 00:13, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
>> to elaborate on this point a bit: please make sure you understand what
>> you're testing! tcpbench and iperf both test how fast your tcp or udp
>> server running in userland can receive and transmit informat
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 01:50:26PM +0300, Kapeatanakis Giannis wrote:
> On 05/08/12 00:13, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> >to elaborate on this point a bit: please make sure you understand
> >what you're testing! tcpbench and iperf both test how fast your
> >tcp or udp server running in userland can recei
On 05/08/12 00:13, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
to elaborate on this point a bit: please make sure you understand what
you're testing! tcpbench and iperf both test how fast your tcp or udp
server running in userland can receive and transmit information
through the socket interface. this has nothing to
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 17:43 +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 02:22:57PM +0200, Henrik Lund Kramshøj wrote:
> > On 24/07/2012, at 14.16, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 01:52:03PM +0200, Peter Hessler wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 2012 Jul 24 (Tue) at 12:40:00
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 02:22:57PM +0200, Henrik Lund Kramshøj wrote:
> On 24/07/2012, at 14.16, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 01:52:03PM +0200, Peter Hessler wrote:
> >
> >> On 2012 Jul 24 (Tue) at 12:40:00 +0200 (+0200), Henrik Lund Kramsh?j
> wrote:
> >> :Current tuning, ap
Hi
I have bought two lab systems for testing 10Gbit and have some issues with
10Gbit performance.
Note: I have the devices triple-booting FreeBSD, Linux and OpenBSD and can get
about 9.4Gbits/sec with Linux iperf using iperf -t 60
I have read and updated kernel to latest snapshot
OpenBSD 5.2 (GEN
On 24/07/2012, at 14.16, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 01:52:03PM +0200, Peter Hessler wrote:
>
>> On 2012 Jul 24 (Tue) at 12:40:00 +0200 (+0200), Henrik Lund Kramsh?j
wrote:
>> :Current tuning, apart from kernel defaults:
>> :and also modified /etc/sysctl somewhat - most changes
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 02:22:57PM +0200, Henrik Lund Kramsh?j wrote:
>
> On 24/07/2012, at 14.16, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 01:52:03PM +0200, Peter Hessler wrote:
> >
> >> On 2012 Jul 24 (Tue) at 12:40:00 +0200 (+0200), Henrik Lund Kramsh?j wrote:
> >> :Current tuning,
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 01:52:03PM +0200, Peter Hessler wrote:
> On 2012 Jul 24 (Tue) at 12:40:00 +0200 (+0200), Henrik Lund Kramsh?j wrote:
> :Current tuning, apart from kernel defaults:
> :and also modified /etc/sysctl somewhat - most changes below are from
> :https://calomel.org/network_perform
On 24/07/2012, at 13.52, Peter Hessler wrote:
> On 2012 Jul 24 (Tue) at 12:40:00 +0200 (+0200), Henrik Lund Kramshøj wrote:
> :Current tuning, apart from kernel defaults:
> :and also modified /etc/sysctl somewhat - most changes below are from
> :https://calomel.org/network_performance.html:
>
> Re
On 2012 Jul 24 (Tue) at 12:40:00 +0200 (+0200), Henrik Lund Kramshøj wrote:
:Current tuning, apart from kernel defaults:
:and also modified /etc/sysctl somewhat - most changes below are from
:https://calomel.org/network_performance.html:
Revert all changes recommended by this page, they hurt perfo
Hi
I have bought two lab systems for testing 10Gbit and have some issues with
10Gbit performance.
Note: I have the devices triple-booting FreeBSD, Linux and OpenBSD and can get
about 9.4Gbits/sec with Linux iperf using iperf -t 60
I have read and updated kernel to latest snapshot
OpenBSD 5.2 (GEN
12 matches
Mail list logo
