Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!inferno.mpx.com.au!news.ci.com.au!brian.telstra.net!act.news.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!psgrain!news-stk-11.sprintlink.net!news-stk-3.sprintlink.net!news-west.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news.maxwell.syr.edu!stdio!uninett.no!not-for-mail From: sthaug@nethelp.no (Steinar Haug) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: New Netperf throughput numbers for FreeBSD Date: 12 Jun 1997 20:19:30 GMT Organization: Nethelp Consulting, Trondheim, Norway Lines: 37 Message-ID: <5nplkj$16f@verdi.nethelp.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: dole.uninett.no Cache-Post-Path: dole.uninett.no!unknown@verdi.nethelp.no Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:42936 I just submitted a new set of throughput numbers for Fast Ethernet and FreeBSD to Rick Jones, the Netperf maintainer. In short, we can fill the wire :-) I measured 93.57 Mbit/s with Netperf. This was the best of several measurements with different socket buffer sizes and read/write sizes. However, *all* of the measurements were above 93 Mbit/s. If you look at the bits on the wire, 93.57 Mbit/s (application to application) corresponds to 93.57 * (1538/1440) = 99.94 Mbit/s on the wire. Note that 1440 is the correct number, not 1460 - because I made no changes to the default use of RFC 1323 and RFC 1644 extensions (so each packet has 20 bytes of TCP options). The setup was: Sender: noname machine, PPro-200 with 256 KB cache, 440FX chipset, BCM Advanced Research SQ600 mainboard, 64 MB memory. Kingston (DEC 21140 based) 100BaseTX network card. FreeBSD 2.2-BETA operating system. Receover: noname machine, P-133 with 256 KB cache, 430VX chipset, QDI P5I430VX motherboard, 32 MB memory. Intel Pro 100/B 100BaseTX network card. FreeBSD 3.0-970124-SNAP operating system. Both machines were run with no other load during the test. They were connected via a Cisco Catalyst 5000 switch. Connections to both hosts were full duplex. The network was isolated. The P-133 was clearly a limiting factor. Running 'top' showed that it was spending something like 99% of the time in kernel or interrupt mode during this test - so even with a network faster than 100 Mbps Ethernet, *this* particular setup wouldn't run much faster. However, the PPro-200 still had plenty of CPU left. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no