David S. Miller wrote:
From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:41:02 -0800
So, I am asking the TSO folks: Will you pay any attention to
a bug report against 2.6.13.2, or would I just be wasting my
time?
If the answer is yes, then I'll get on it..otherwise, I'll wait un
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On
It is not necessarily the most efficient way to generate bulk traffic,
but I think it is a valid test.
I use non-blocking IO and poll(). It is true that both sides may have
full TX and/or RX buffers, but the code still works fine. I can adjust
my tool to request a
I can say that "stock" netperf has no _single-connection_ bidirectional
tests,
As I think more about it, that statement of mine is slightly incorrect. If one
configures netperf2 with --enable-burst, and are careful about the product of
the burst size and request/response sizes wrt the size of
On
> It is not necessarily the most efficient way to generate bulk traffic,
> but I think it is a valid test.
>
> I use non-blocking IO and poll(). It is true that both sides may have
> full TX and/or RX buffers, but the code still works fine. I can adjust
> my tool to request any speed any eith
Rick Jones wrote:
Ben, as for your test I think something is messed up in your patches,
as no one else seems to be reporting your freezes.
I will run some tests on standard kernels if I can still reproduce on
2.6.14. If it is bugs in my patches, it's subtle..since turning off
TSO fixes it.
Ben, as for your test I think something is messed up in your patches,
as no one else seems to be reporting your freezes.
I will run some tests on standard kernels if I can still reproduce on
2.6.14. If it is bugs in my patches, it's subtle..since turning off
TSO fixes it.
IIRC you said you h
Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
On 11/9/05, Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am frusterated that the linux kernel seems to be
unstable for high levels of TCP traffic for very common
hardware (e1000).
Is anyone doing tests that involve high levels of bi-directional
TCP traffic using TSO? If so,
On 11/9/05, Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am frusterated that the linux kernel seems to be
> unstable for high levels of TCP traffic for very common
> hardware (e1000).
>
> Is anyone doing tests that involve high levels of bi-directional
> TCP traffic using TSO? If so, please let me kn
From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:39:38 -0800
> I will give it a try..as soon as the next stable point release comes
> out..seems there are some networking bug fixes coming soon if I recall
> correctly.
Just a UDP zero-length transfer bug fix from Herbert, nothing
TCP
David S. Miller wrote:
From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:41:02 -0800
So, I am asking the TSO folks: Will you pay any attention to
a bug report against 2.6.13.2, or would I just be wasting my
time?
If the answer is yes, then I'll get on it..otherwise, I'll wait un
From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:41:02 -0800
> So, I am asking the TSO folks: Will you pay any attention to
> a bug report against 2.6.13.2, or would I just be wasting my
> time?
>
> If the answer is yes, then I'll get on it..otherwise, I'll wait untill
> I move to
Rick Jones wrote:
It appears that I can (almost?) completedly deadlock a TCP connection
when
using TSO on 2.6.13.2. My test involves trying to send 200Mbps
between two
interfaces. With TSO enabled (ie, the default for e1000 NICs), in
less than
1 minute, there are no more packets transmitted,
It appears that I can (almost?) completedly deadlock a TCP connection when
using TSO on 2.6.13.2. My test involves trying to send 200Mbps between two
interfaces. With TSO enabled (ie, the default for e1000 NICs), in less than
1 minute, there are no more packets transmitted, though it does run ni
Ian McDonald wrote:
What about latest netdev tree rather than 2.6.13.2?
There have been changes going on...
Yep..but the answer is always to try one later build..and
it takes time (I reported similar problems in 2.6.11 and was
told that 2.6.12 (or maybe .13) was going to fix it...)
I am afraid
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 10:22:59AM +1300, Ian McDonald wrote:
> > > What about latest netdev tree rather than 2.6.13.2?
> > >
> > > There have been changes going on...
> >
> > Yep..but the answer is always to try one later build..and
> > it takes time (I reported similar problems in 2.6.11 and was
> >
> > What about latest netdev tree rather than 2.6.13.2?
> >
> > There have been changes going on...
>
> Yep..but the answer is always to try one later build..and
> it takes time (I reported similar problems in 2.6.11 and was
> told that 2.6.12 (or maybe .13) was going to fix it...)
> I am afrai
Ian McDonald wrote:
It appears that I can (almost?) completedly deadlock a
TCP connection when using TSO on 2.6.13.2. My test involves
trying to send 200Mbps between two interfaces. With TSO enabled (ie, the
default
for e1000 NICs), in less than 1 minute, there are no more packets transmitted,
> It appears that I can (almost?) completedly deadlock a
> TCP connection when using TSO on 2.6.13.2. My test involves
> trying to send 200Mbps between two interfaces. With TSO enabled (ie, the
> default
> for e1000 NICs), in less than 1 minute, there are no more packets transmitted,
> though it
Sent to wrong list first time...
Original Message
Subject: TSO and 2.6.13.2
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:44:05 -0800
From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Candela Technologies
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It appears that I can (almost?) completedly dea
19 matches
Mail list logo
