Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:49:41 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Norbert Aschendorff <norbert.aschendorff@yahoo.de> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPv4 vs. IPv6 Ethernet Performance Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1209091845240.13080@ai.fobar.qr> In-Reply-To: <503F8186.4070906@yahoo.de> References: <503CE60F.8040007@yahoo.de> <loom.20120829T133814-120@post.gmane.org> <503E5C14.9090001@yahoo.de> <CA%2Bq%2BTcpkgecViB%2B9ze=UX7=UYq1YKkN690X6XAzYcpcrdZtO2w@mail.gmail.com> <503F8186.4070906@yahoo.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Norbert Aschendorff wrote: Hi, > I tested it using tcpdump: http://nopaste.info/9394068f54_nl.html > The length field says for each packet 1408 bytes, so that should be OK. > > The Wireshark instance on the iperf server says something like "16732 > bytes on wire" for the most packets (not always with 16732 bytes, but > most packets over 10,000) - could that be reassembled somehow? only slowly catching up on email so... chiming in now. I'd assume in this case the iperf "server" is linux or did Jack add IPv6 LRO support to e1000? Sorry, I am not up-to-date. However, any modern peice of hardware should be able to fill the 1G link even with software doing csums or offloading really and all our routing table lookups. What's the well known FreeBSD machine of a machine? I can only imaging what's going on for you and some of the latest work was not yet merged to head or 9; I have 1 or 2 patches posted to net@ for review and testing though. Sorry not immediately helpful. /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1209091845240.13080>