Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 3 Dec 2001 02:03:01 -0800 (PST)
From:      Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
To:        Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il>
Cc:        Richard Sharpe <sharpe@ns.aus.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Patch #3 (TCP / Linux / Performance) 
Message-ID:  <200112031003.fB3A31S96528@apollo.backplane.com>
References:   <E16ApIO-000GlG-00@pampa.cs.huji.ac.il>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

:this is what i get, it's between a dell 2540 (dual PIII/900) and an Intel Sl2
:(dual PIII/1g). both are using intel's em driver.
:
:majadara> ./tbench 1 bagel
:Throughput 12.4785 MB/sec (NB=15.5981 MB/sec  124.785 MBit/sec)
:...
:Throughput 37.002 MB/sec (NB=46.2526 MB/sec  370.02 MBit/sec)
: ./tbench 20 bagel
:Throughput 37.0574 MB/sec (NB=46.3217 MB/sec  370.574 MBit/sec)
:
:it starts very nice, but maxes out at about 37MB/sec.

    Yah.  Anything running over GigE is going to be extremely
    finicky about the cpu/hardware/motherboard design.  The best
    tbench results I got was 47 MB/sec between two DELL2550's(1.1GHz).
    It was definitely cpu-saturated.  37 MB/sec sounds about
    right for a 900 MHz box (with everything else being equal).
    This is actually fairly good performance considering the
    Big Giant Lock issue with SMP.

:btw, before the patch tbench was moving bits (not bytes :-) at turtle speed
:(i thought that it was hung, but tcpdump showed some trafffic :-)
:
:good work! now lets see if nfs/tcp is ok again.
:
:danny

    It should be.  I now get 7.8 MBytes/sec with a TCP mount and
    *no* nfsiod's running where before I got buckus.
    And with nfsiod's I get 12.3 MBytes/sec over 100BaseTX
    (100% saturation).  On the GigE I get 16 MBytes/sec without
    nfsiod and around 22 MBytes/sec with nfsiod running.
    That's doing NFS reads... a 'dd' to read a large file over
    NFS, and very good for a TCP mount.  UDP mounts over the
    GigE get 19 MB/s and 31 MB/s reading, which is also very good
    for a single-file read.

    I wish we'd gone after these problems earlier.  If we had our
    ducks lined up in a row we could have had these (trivial) fixes
    in as early as FreeBSD-4.3 and would have got much more 
    favorable numbers in the several Linux<->FreeBSD comparison
    articles that have come out in the last six months.  Oh well.

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon@backplane.com>

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200112031003.fB3A31S96528>