On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 23:10:28 +0100
Olaf Kirch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:38:52AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> > The patch in question affects purely TCP and not the scheduler. I don't
>
> I know.
>
> > think the scheduler has anything to do with the slowdown seen after
> > the patch is applied.
>
> In fixing performance issues, the most obvious explanation isn't always
> the right one. It's quite possible you're right, sure.
>
> What I'm saying though is that it doesn't rhyme with what I've seen of
> Volanomark - we ran 2.6.16 on a 4p Intel box for instance and it didn't
> come close to saturating a Gigabit pipe before it maxed out on CPU load.
>
> > The total number of messages being exchanged around the chatrooms in
> > Volanomark remain unchanged. But ACKS increase by 3.5 times and
> > segments received increase by 38% from netstat.
>
> > So I think it is reasonable to conclude that the increase in TCP traffic
> > reduce the bandwidth and throughput in Volanomark.
>
> You could count the number of outbound packets dropped on the server.
>
> Olaf
Also under benchmark stress, the load can get so high that timers go
off that normally don't. For example, I have seen delayed ack timer
cause extra ack's when at lower loads the response happened quick enough
that the ACK was piggybacked.
--
Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
