Hi Thomas,
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 03:11:40PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
>> Trying to reproduce this I found that with the sk_buff overhead removed,
>> the performance would improve significantly unless socket buffer limits
>> are increased.
> I believe this is likely to be misunderstood. What I meant is that by
> removing the sk_buff overhead and while using default socket buffer limits
> the performance increases as shown below. If socket buffers are enlarged
> performance differences fade until there is no longer any difference.
>
> Sorry for poor wording.
>
>> The following numbers have been gathered using a patched iperf
>> supporting SCTP over a live 1 Gbit ethernet network. The -l option
>> was used to limit DATA chunk sizes. The numbers listed are based on
>> the average of 3 test runs each. Default values have been used for
>> sk_(r|w)mem.
>>
>> Chunk
>> Size Unpatched No Overhead
>> -------------------------------------
>> 4 15.2 Kbit [!] 12.2 Mbit [!]
>> 8 35.8 Kbit [!] 26.0 Mbit [!]
>> 16 95.5 Kbit [!] 54.4 Mbit [!]
>> 32 106.7 Mbit 102.3 Mbit
>> 64 189.2 Mbit 188.3 Mbit
>> 128 331.2 Mbit 334.8 Mbit
>> 256 537.7 Mbit 536.0 Mbit
>> 512 766.9 Mbit 766.6 Mbit
>> 1024 810.1 Mbit 808.6 Mbit
I saw you discussed this with Vlad in old mail:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sctp/msg01365.html
You said you will update patch to include a per packet overhead,
but it does not include in this patch, what's wrong with in?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
