Danial Thom wrote:
--- Ben Greear <[email protected]> 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.
I used brctl to create a bridge with the two
GigE adapters in it and
used pktgen to stream traffic through it
(250kpps in one direction, 1kpps in
the other.)
I see a reasonable amount of drops at 250kpps
(60 byte packets):
about 60,000,000 packets received, 20,700
dropped.
I get slightly worse performance on this system when running RH9
with kernel 2.4.29 (my hacks, HZ=1000, SMP). Tried increasing
e1000 descriptors to 2048 tx and rx, but that didn't help, or at least
not much.
Will try some other tunings, but I doubt it will affect performance
enough to come close to the discrepency that you show between 2.4
and 2.6 kernels...
I tried copying a 500MB CDROM to HD on my RH9 system, and only 6kpps
of the 250kpps get through the bridge...btw.
Ben
--
Ben Greear <[email protected]>
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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |