On 05/09/2018 12:02 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
On 05/09/2018 11:48 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On 05/09/2018 11:43 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
On 05/08/2018 10:10 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On 05/08/2018 09:44 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to track down a performance regression that appears to
On 05/09/2018 11:48 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On 05/09/2018 11:43 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
On 05/08/2018 10:10 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On 05/08/2018 09:44 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to track down a performance regression that appears to be between
4.13
and 4.14.
I first saw the
On 05/09/2018 11:43 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 05/08/2018 10:10 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05/08/2018 09:44 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am trying to track down a performance regression that appears to be
>>> between 4.13
>>> and 4.14.
>>>
>>> I first saw the problem with
On 05/08/2018 10:10 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On 05/08/2018 09:44 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to track down a performance regression that appears to be between
4.13
and 4.14.
I first saw the problem with a hacked version of pktgen on some ixgbe NICs.
4.13 can do
right at 10G bi
On 05/08/2018 09:44 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to track down a performance regression that appears to be between
> 4.13
> and 4.14.
>
> I first saw the problem with a hacked version of pktgen on some ixgbe NICs.
> 4.13 can do
> right at 10G bi-directional on two ports, an
Hello,
I am trying to track down a performance regression that appears to be between
4.13
and 4.14.
I first saw the problem with a hacked version of pktgen on some ixgbe NICs.
4.13 can do
right at 10G bi-directional on two ports, and 4.14 and later can do only about
6Gbps.
I also tried with
