|
Bon jour, Thomas,
> > if this doesn't work, implement TCP zero-copy ;)
>
> I didn't get this joke. Do you thing about routing via
> /dev/null?
Somewhat into that direction :) No, seriously I didn't mean it as a
joke. If you're interested, grab yourself a copy of:
http://www.digital.com/info/DTJS05/
and read the lkml thread about TCP zero-copy (and supported NICs):
http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/2000week36/0979.html
> > > very busy. xload shows over 600% load.
> >
> > Oh, wait a minute, I had this too, what exactly does it say?
>
> Nice question. I was told that xload only meassures the load
> of user processes, not of the kernel. But maybe, when the kernel
> is slow, your user processes can't be processed as fast as normal
> and you experience a higher load?
Could you please do your tests without X-windows? X is such a memory
eater that performance tests at your level might be influenced by it.
Tha latter is a question of schedule(). I'd love to have access to a
lab like you do. We could make very cool stress tests.
> > How big are the packets?
>
> It is testLVS, that means you send only syn-packets, and the server
> rejects them.
Julian, does tcp_max_syn_backlog with enabled tcp_syncookies have any
impact on the timeout_synack or are they handled differently.
> Well, I don't have too much hope on it, since I have the newest
> kernel (with the newes non-modified 3c59x) AND I tried the
> driver for 3c90x from 3Com directly. And that one was better.
What do you mean by the newest kernel with the newest driver? Could
you tell us the versions? I know about 4 different 3c59x driver versions
floating around.
> Thomas
Best regards,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
--
mailto: `echo NrOatSz@xxxxxxxxx | sed 's/[NOSPAM]//g'`
|
