On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 15:00 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
> Optimizing for loopback is perversion; perversion can be fun but it gets
> to be a obsession then it's sick.
>
It is not my intention to optimize for this case, but rather to
detect change in kernel behavior.
That's why in my orig
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 23:10 +0100, Olaf Kirch wrote:
>
> In fixing performance issues, the most obvious explanation isn't always
> the right one. It's quite possible you're right, sure.
>
> What I'm saying though is that it doesn't rhyme with what I've seen of
> Volanomark - we ran 2.6.16 on a 4
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 17:29 +0100, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> Is it proven that the number of ACKs actually cause bandwidth problems?
> I found Volanomark to exercise the scheduler more than anything else,
> so maybe the slowdown, while triggered by an increased number of ACKs,
> is caused by something e
