On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:46:46PM +0300, Nikolay Denev wrote: N> > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 05:11:12PM +0300, Nikolay Denev wrote: N> > N> With both modules I was able to saturate the four GigE interfaces, and got N> > N> about ~3.72 Gbits/sec total according to iperf, systat -ifstat showed N> > N> about 116MB/s per each interface. N> > N> N> > N> However I'm seeing slightly different CPU stat graphs [1], the difference is not big, N> > N> but with the new if_lagg(4) driver, when the machine is acting as client I'm N> > N> seeing slightly higher system CPU time, and about the same interrupt, while N> > N> when acting as server both system and interrupt are slightly lower. N> > N> But please note that these tests were not very scientifically correct. N> > N> When the server is available again I might be able to perform several runs and N> > N> do a proper comparison. N> > N> > Do I understand correct, that in the above testing "server" means transmitting N> > traffic and "client" is receiving traffic? N> > N> > -- N> > Totus tuus, Glebius. N> N> Actually with iperf the server is more like a sink, and the client sends data to the server. N> Here's what's in the man page : N> N> To perform an iperf test the user N> must establish both a server (to discard traffic) and a client (to gen- N> erate traffic).
Hmm, in this case I'm really puzzled with results. I expected that receiving side won't be affected and transmitting optimized. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
