Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems

[Ben Greear]

Danial Thom wrote:
> --- Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > Danial Thom wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made
> >
> > trade
> >
> > > offs that lower raw throughput, which is what
> >
> > a
> >
> > > networking device needs. So as a router or
> > > network appliance, 2.6 seems less suitable. A
> >
> > raw
> >
> > > bridging test on a 2.0Ghz operton system:
> > >
> > > FreeBSD 4.9: Drops no packets at 900K pps
> > > Linux 2.4.24: Starts dropping packets at 350K
> >
> > pps
> >
> > > Linux 2.6.12: Starts dropping packets at 100K
> >
> > pps
> >
> > I ran some quick tests using kernel 2.6.11, 1ms
> > tick (HZ=1000), SMP kernel.
> > Hardware is P-IV 3.0Ghz + HT on a new
> > SuperMicro motherboard with 64/133Mhz
> > PCI-X bus.  NIC is dual Intel pro/1000.  Kernel
> > is close to stock 2.6.11.

> What GigE adapters did you use? Clearly every
> driver is going to be different. My experience is
> that a 3.4Ghz P4 is about the performance of a
> 2.0Ghz Opteron. I have to try your tuning script
> tomorrow.

Intel pro/1000, as I mentioned.  I haven't tried any other
NIC that comes close in performance to the e1000.

> If your test is still set up, try compiling
> something large while doing the test. The drops
> go through the roof in my tests.

Installing RH9 on the box now to try some tests...

Disk access always robs networking, in my experience, so
I am not supprised you see bad ntwk performance while
compiling.

Ben

--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/