Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 17:19:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 17:19:37 -0500 Received: from vger.timpanogas.org ([207.109.151.240]:9227 "EHLO vger.timpanogas.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 17:19:28 -0500 Message-ID: <39FF4488.83B6C1CE@timpanogas.org> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:15:37 -0700 From: "Jeff V. Merkey" Organization: TRG, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Larry McVoy CC: Paul Menage , Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.2.18Pre Lan Performance Rocks! In-Reply-To: <39FF3D53.C46EB1A8@timpanogas.org> <20001031140534.A22819@work.bitmover.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Larry, The quality of the networking code in Linux is quite excellent. There's some scaling problems relative to NetWare. We are firmly committed to getting something out with a Linux code base and NetWare metrics. Love to have your help. Jeff Larry McVoy wrote: > > {lots of perf stuff deleted} > > I'm posting this to point out that Linux networking is getting better at > a substantial pace. > > I've already sent this to Davem and Linus a while back, but I have a > pretty nice lab here at BitMover, 4 100Mbit switched networks, servers > with 4 cards, and enough clients to generate load. I actually have > two servers both of which have a NIC on each network; one server has > .2.15pre9 on it and the other has 2.4.0-test5 on it. > > I don't have a lot of spare time, but if you are one of the kernel > developers and you have tests you want run, contact me privately. > > I ran some tests to see how things have changed. What follows are the > details, the short summary is that 2.4 looks to me to be about 2x better > in both latency and bandwidth, no mean feat. I'm very impressed with > this, and I'm especially tickled to see the hand that Dave has had in > this, he's really come into his own as a senior kernel hacker. I'm sure > he doesn't need me to stroke his ego, but I'm doing it anyways because > I'm proud of him (with no disrespect to the many other people who have > worked on this intended). > > So here's what I did. I fired up the lat_tcp and bw_tcp servers from > lmbench on the server and then generated load from all the clients. > I noodled around until I found the right mix which gave the best numbers > and that's roughly what is reported below. I don't have the 2.2 numbers > handy but I can get them if you care, it was very close to 2x worse, > like about 1.9x or so. > > The server is running Linux 2.4 test9, I believe. It has 3 Intel EEpro's > and one 3c905B. It's a Ghz K7. > > Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557 [Ethernet Pro 100] (rev 8). > Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557 [Ethernet Pro 100] (#2) (rev 8). > Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557 [Ethernet Pro 100] (#3) (rev 8). > Ethernet controller: 3Com Corporation 3c905B 100BaseTX [Cyclone] (rev 48). > > All are going into Netgear Fs308 8 port switches. There are 13 clients, > mostly Intel Linux boxes, but various others as well, let me know if > you care. A couple of the clients were behind two levels of switches > (I have 6 here). > > Run a single copy of lat_tcp on each client against the server, we see: > load free cach swap pgin pgou dk0 dk1 dk2 dk3 ipkt opkt int ctx usr sys idl > 4.68 443M 21M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42K 39K 55K 46K 4 96 0 > 4.68 443M 21M 0 0 2.0K 0 0 0 0 40K 38K 55K 44K 2 98 0 > 4.68 443M 21M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40K 38K 55K 44K 3 97 0 > 4.55 443M 21M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42K 40K 54K 48K 4 96 0 > 4.55 443M 21M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41K 39K 54K 45K 3 97 0 > 4.50 443M 21M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40K 38K 54K 44K 2 98 0 > 4.50 443M 21M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41K 38K 55K 44K 3 97 0 > 4.50 443M 21M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41K 41K 54K 45K 7 93 0 > 4.86 443M 21M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38K 38K 54K 44K 3 97 0 > > OK, now bandwidth. Each client is capable of getting at least 11MB/sec from > the server when run one at a time. I ran just 4 clients, one per network. > > load free cach swap pgin pgou dk0 dk1 dk2 dk3 ipkt opkt int ctx usr sys idl > 0.28 444M 22M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14K 27K 15K 2.9K 2 55 43 > 0.28 444M 22M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14K 29K 16K 3.1K 2 66 32 > 0.26 444M 22M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14K 29K 16K 3.0K 1 67 32 > 0.26 444M 22M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15K 29K 16K 3.0K 1 65 34 > 0.24 444M 22M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15K 29K 16K 3.0K 0 70 30 > 0.24 444M 22M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15K 29K 16K 3.0K 0 63 37 > 0.24 444M 22M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14K 28K 16K 3.0K 1 62 37 > 0.22 444M 22M 0 2.0K 0 0 0 0 0 14K 28K 16K 2.9K 1 65 34 > > It works out to an average of 10.4MB/sec per client or 41.6MB/sec on the > server on a PCI/32 @ 33Mhz bus. Same Ghz server. Note the idle cycles, > bandwidth is a lot easier than latency. > > Hope this is useful to someone. > -- > --- > Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/