Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:56:24 -0700 From: soralx@cydem.org To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em blues Message-ID: <200610112056.24546.soralx@cydem.org> In-Reply-To: <2a41acea0610111051r36ad7200gef868593e34c9331@mail.gmail.com> References: <E1GXeiv-0007hw-4u@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il> <2a41acea0610111051r36ad7200gef868593e34c9331@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 10/11/06, Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> wrote: > > the box is a bit old (Intel Pentium III (933.07-MHz 686-class CPU) > > dual cpu. > > > > running iperf -c (receiving): > > > > freebsd-4.10 0.0-10.0 sec 936 MBytes 785 Mbits/sec > > freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec 413 MBytes 346 Mbits/sec > > freebsd.6.1 0.0-10.0 sec 366 MBytes 307 Mbits/sec > > freebsd-6.2 0.0-10.0 sec 344 MBytes 289 Mbits/sec > > > > btw, iperf -s (xmitting) is slightly better > > freebsd-4.10 0.0-10.0 sec 664 MBytes 558 Mbits/sec > > freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec 390 MBytes 327 Mbits/sec > > freebsd-6.1 0.0-10.0 sec 495 MBytes 415 Mbits/sec > > freebsd-6.2 0.0-10.0 sec 487 MBytes 408 Mbits/sec > > > > so, it seems that as the release number increases, the em > > throughput gets worse - or iperf is. > > You arent measuring em, you're measuring RELEASES on > your hardware, is this a surprise on a P3, no. still, 63% drop in performance doesn't cause much joy, does it? [SorAlx] ridin' VN1500-B2
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200610112056.24546.soralx>