On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:07:32 -0800
Tim Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 23:10 +0100, Olaf Kirch wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> I am running Volanomark in a loopback mode on a 2P woodcrest box
> (4 cores). So the configuration is a bit different.
>
> In my testing, the CPU utilization is at 100%. So
> increase in ACKs will cost CPU to devote more
> time to process those ACKs and reduce throughput.
>
> >
> > You could count the number of outbound packets dropped on the server.
> >
>
> As I'm running in loopback mode, there are no dropped packets.
>
Optimizing for loopback is perversion; perversion can be fun but it gets
to be a obsession then it's sick.
--
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]
