From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 5 15:11:42 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83F43106564A for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:11:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (glebius.int.ru [81.19.64.117]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBBEC8FC08 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:11:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q95FBdqF052534; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:11:39 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q95FBdwx052533; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:11:39 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.glebius.int.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:11:39 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Nikolay Denev Message-ID: <20121005151139.GS34622@glebius.int.ru> References: <201209201005.q8KA5BqZ094414@svn.freebsd.org> <2966A49C-DE3F-4559-A799-D1E9C0A74A9C@gmail.com> <20121005070914.GI34622@glebius.int.ru> <20121005080453.GL34622@glebius.int.ru> <2109548116005159772@unknownmsgid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: svn commit: r240742 - head/sys/net X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:11:42 -0000 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.