Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:18:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:18:14 -0500 Received: from raven.toyota.com ([63.87.74.200]:23310 "EHLO raven.toyota.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:18:02 -0500 Message-ID: <3AB1153F.802BEBA9@toyota.com> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:17:19 -0800 From: J Sloan X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.3-pre4 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rik van Riel CC: "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" Subject: Re: How to optimize routing performance In-Reply-To: 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 Rik van Riel wrote: > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, J Sloan wrote: > > > There are some scheduler patches that are not part of the > > main kernel tree at this point (mostly since they have yet to > > be optimized for the common case) which make quite a big > > difference under heavy load - you might want to check out: > > > > http://lse.sourceforge.net/scheduling/ > > Unrelated. Fun, but unrelated to networking... Fun, yes, and perhaps not directly related, however under high load, where the sheer numbet of interrupts per second begins to overwhelm the kernel, might it not be relevant? After all, the benchmarks do point to tangible improvements in the performance of network server apps. Or are you saying that the bottleneck is somewhere else completely, or that there wouldn't be a bottleneck in this case if certain kernel parameters were correctly set? Just curious, Jup - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/