Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:11:39 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Nikolay Denev <ndenev@gmail.com> Cc: "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r240742 - head/sys/net Message-ID: <20121005151139.GS34622@glebius.int.ru> In-Reply-To: <E932BC95-8286-495D-9709-3F74379CB90B@gmail.com> References: <201209201005.q8KA5BqZ094414@svn.freebsd.org> <2966A49C-DE3F-4559-A799-D1E9C0A74A9C@gmail.com> <20121005070914.GI34622@glebius.int.ru> <F01FAEFE-8148-412D-9772-A48A1ADA64A7@gmail.com> <20121005080453.GL34622@glebius.int.ru> <2109548116005159772@unknownmsgid> <E932BC95-8286-495D-9709-3F74379CB90B@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nikolay, On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 05:11:12PM +0300, Nikolay Denev wrote: N> With both modules I was able to saturate the four GigE interfaces, and got N> about ~3.72 Gbits/sec total according to iperf, systat -ifstat showed N> about 116MB/s per each interface. N> N> However I'm seeing slightly different CPU stat graphs [1], the difference is not big, N> but with the new if_lagg(4) driver, when the machine is acting as client I'm N> seeing slightly higher system CPU time, and about the same interrupt, while N> when acting as server both system and interrupt are slightly lower. N> But please note that these tests were not very scientifically correct. N> When the server is available again I might be able to perform several runs and N> do a proper comparison. Do I understand correct, that in the above testing "server" means transmitting traffic and "client" is receiving traffic? -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121005151139.GS34622>