svn commit: r240742 - head/sys/net

[Gleb Smirnoff]

On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:46:46PM +0300, Nikolay Denev wrote:
N> > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 05:11:12PM +0300, Nikolay Denev wrote:
N> > N> With both modules I was able to saturate the four GigE interfaces, and got 
N> > N> about ~3.72 Gbits/sec total according to iperf, systat -ifstat showed
N> > N> about 116MB/s per each interface.
N> > N> 
N> > N> However I'm seeing slightly different CPU stat graphs [1], the difference is not big,
N> > N> but with the new if_lagg(4) driver, when the machine is acting as client I'm
N> > N> seeing slightly higher system CPU time, and about the same interrupt, while
N> > N> when acting as server both system and interrupt are slightly lower.
N> > N> But please note that these tests were not very scientifically correct.
N> > N> When the server is available again I might be able to perform several runs and
N> > N> do a proper comparison.
N> > 
N> > Do I understand correct, that in the above testing "server" means transmitting
N> > traffic and "client" is receiving traffic?
N> > 
N> > -- 
N> > Totus tuus, Glebius.
N> 
N> Actually with iperf the server is more like a sink, and the client sends data to the server.
N> Here's what's in the man page :
N> 
N> To perform an iperf test  the  user
N>        must establish both a server (to discard traffic) and a client (to gen-
N>        erate traffic).

Hmm, in this case I'm really puzzled with results. I expected that receiving
side won't be affected and transmitting optimized.

-- 
Totus tuus, Glebius.