Date: 12 Aug 1998 17:00:50 +0100 From: freebsd-net-list@salford.ac.uk To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 2.2.6 net performance and panic with 1000's of sockets open Message-ID: <19980812160052.215.qmail@ananke.salford.ac.uk>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <6pl4lk$a51$3@ocean.cup.hp.com>, Rick Jones <foo@bar.baz> wrote: >Mark Powell (mark@nospam.salford.ac.uk) wrote: >: I thought I had the extensions on, but with netperf I can't get more >: than ~64Mbits/sec. > >: net.inet.tcp.rfc1323: 1 >: net.inet.tcp.rfc1644: 1 > >I think Steinar meant ttcp the benchmark, not T/TCP the TCP protocol >extensions. As for netperf only getting 64 Mbit/s, it would help if >you could do a cut and paste of your command lines so we can see the >parameters used in the neteprf test. Didn't realise there was much to netperf. Start on server: $ netserver -P 9999 On client: $ netperf -H <server> -p 9999 If I use: $ route -n change <server> -recvpipe 65536 -sendpipe 65536 On the client, I've seen 73Mbit/s. If I do a UDP_STREAM I get 95.8Mbit/s. >: Yeah, the performance of the web caching software. Looks like the >: squid stuff is pretty poorly optimised? > >Not sure if it will be at all germane, but you might look at: > > ftp://ftp.cup.hp.com/dist/networking/briefs/ Most of it not applicable, but I may try some squid/kernel profiling to see what it's doing. Cheers. -- Mark Powell - System Administrator (UNIX) - Clifford Whitworth Building A.I.S., University of Salford, Salford, Manchester, UK. Tel: +44 161 295 5936 Fax: +44 161 295 5888 Email: M.S.Powell@ais.salfrd.ac.uk finger mark@ucsalf.ac.uk (for PGP key) NO SPAM please: Spell salford correctly to reply to me. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980812160052.215.qmail>