On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 13:46 -0800, Greg Lindahl wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 03:29:34PM -0600, Matt Garman wrote: > > > Also, right now, we are more concerned with latency than throughput. > > Our total traffic is less than what the hardware can handle from a > > throughput perspective, but we are more senstive to latency issues. > > Sounds like you ought to be using cpu affinities to give the > receiver/stamper/queuer process its own dedicated core. I enforce this statement: you *have* to bind each thread to its own CPU - Linux thread scheduling on standard kernels is highly non-deterministic from my experience. Otherwise, even with sufficient cores available, not all runnable threads of a process will be executed concurrently. Also, I'd be concerned about clock-synchronization issues when you are trying to measure in the low micro-second range (which I assume you are). -- Joachim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
