search for: througput

...a atrange problem and don''t know where to look anymore. I have 4 interfaces running on RHE3 on a Dell XEON server 2.8Ghz 1Gb RAM. The primary use (only one at this stage) is for the server to handle mac address authentication of clients which it does. The problem however has to do with througput. I have 3 DMZ''s which one is a private range doing masquarading and One Interface connected to the Internet side of my configuration. The other 2 does IP Forwarding. For tests purposes I have a machine on the same side on the Internet running a bandiwdth test program. When I access that...

Hello: In the process of migration from version 1.2 to 2.0 have tried to use lmtp instead of lda as delivery agent. But unfortunately througput we get is poor with lmtp compared to lda. In peak times with lda we are able to deliver over 1800 messages/minute (high I/O but not affecting service) but if we switch to lmtp cannot deliver more than 300 mess/minute (very low I/O). This is enough for normal work but low under heavy load (distri...

...gt;> Performance test results[1] (tx-frames 16 tx-usecs 16) shows: > >>> - For guest receiving. No obvious regression on throughput were > >>> noticed. More cpu utilization were noticed in few cases. > >>> - For guest transmission. Very huge improvement on througput for > >>>small > >>> packet transmission were noticed. This is expected since TSQ and > >>>other > >>> optimization for small packet transmission work after tx interrupt. > >>>But > >>> will use more cpu for large packets...

...gt;> Performance test results[1] (tx-frames 16 tx-usecs 16) shows: > >>> - For guest receiving. No obvious regression on throughput were > >>> noticed. More cpu utilization were noticed in few cases. > >>> - For guest transmission. Very huge improvement on througput for > >>>small > >>> packet transmission were noticed. This is expected since TSQ and > >>>other > >>> optimization for small packet transmission work after tx interrupt. > >>>But > >>> will use more cpu for large packets...

...esults[1] (tx-frames 16 tx-usecs 16) shows: > >> >>> - For guest receiving. No obvious regression on throughput were > >> >>> noticed. More cpu utilization were noticed in few cases. > >> >>> - For guest transmission. Very huge improvement on througput for > >> >>>small > >> >>> packet transmission were noticed. This is expected since TSQ and > >> >>>other > >> >>> optimization for small packet transmission work after tx > >>interrupt. > >> >>>B...

...esults[1] (tx-frames 16 tx-usecs 16) shows: > >> >>> - For guest receiving. No obvious regression on throughput were > >> >>> noticed. More cpu utilization were noticed in few cases. > >> >>> - For guest transmission. Very huge improvement on througput for > >> >>>small > >> >>> packet transmission were noticed. This is expected since TSQ and > >> >>>other > >> >>> optimization for small packet transmission work after tx > >>interrupt. > >> >>>B...

...rames 16 tx-usecs 16) shows: > > >> >>> - For guest receiving. No obvious regression on throughput were > > >> >>> noticed. More cpu utilization were noticed in few cases. > > >> >>> - For guest transmission. Very huge improvement on througput for > > >> >>>small > > >> >>> packet transmission were noticed. This is expected since TSQ and > > >> >>>other > > >> >>> optimization for small packet transmission work after tx > > >>interrupt. &g...

.... >> >> Performance test results[1] (tx-frames 16 tx-usecs 16) shows: >> >> - For guest receiving. No obvious regression on throughput were >> noticed. More cpu utilization were noticed in few cases. >> - For guest transmission. Very huge improvement on througput for >> small >> packet transmission were noticed. This is expected since TSQ and >> other >> optimization for small packet transmission work after tx >> interrupt. But >> will use more cpu for large packets. >> - For TCP_RR, regression (10% on...

.... >> >> Performance test results[1] (tx-frames 16 tx-usecs 16) shows: >> >> - For guest receiving. No obvious regression on throughput were >> noticed. More cpu utilization were noticed in few cases. >> - For guest transmission. Very huge improvement on througput for >> small >> packet transmission were noticed. This is expected since TSQ and >> other >> optimization for small packet transmission work after tx >> interrupt. But >> will use more cpu for large packets. >> - For TCP_RR, regression (10% on...

...m: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com> > > Tx napi mode increases the rate of transmit interrupts. Suppress some > by masking interrupts while more packets are expected. The interrupts > will be reenabled before the last packet is sent. > > This optimization reduces the througput drop with tx napi for > unidirectional flows such as UDP_STREAM that do not benefit from > cleaning tx completions in the the receive napi handler. > > Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com> > --- > drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 8 +++++++- > 1 file chang...

From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com> Tx napi mode increases the rate of transmit interrupts. Suppress some by masking interrupts while more packets are expected. The interrupts will be reenabled before the last packet is sent. This optimization reduces the througput drop with tx napi for unidirectional flows such as UDP_STREAM that do not benefit from cleaning tx completions in the the receive napi handler. Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com> --- drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)...

Hello, everyone! I have a set of proteomic data .And I do a solexa sequencing in the corresponding sample. So I get much mass sequencing data. How can I using R to integrate those two set data. I wonder if some tool or R package would help me? Thank you ! [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Is there anyone who has (successfully) implemented a method of on-access virusscanning of files on a samba share? For Linux, I only know of Sophos and McAfee virusscanners but neither of them can scan files as they are written or read. Is there possibly a hook of some sort in samba for this? Michel. -- Michel van der Laan - michel@nijenrode.nl http://www.nijenrode.nl/~michel

...r3) The strange thing is my upload speed is about 30MB/s, but the download speed is about 5MB/s. I have noticed breaks during the download. (look at attached images). The server is a Opteron 144 @ 1.8 GHz with 2GB DDR and 4 SATA disks in RAID 10 configuration (this should be good enough for a max througput of 120MB/s... The 30MB/s limit is because of my (slow) laptop-harddisk). http://www.nabble.com/file/5721/download.JPG http://www.nabble.com/file/5722/upload.JPG This is my smb.conf: [global] socket options = SO_KEEPALIVE IPTOS_LOWDELAY TCP_NODELAY map to guest = Bad User encrypt passwords =...

Is anyone using Ext3 on a 2.4.x kernel with software raid5? Does it work correctly? Last I checked noone had tried it yet, but that was before I went away on vacation. -- Daniel R. Bidwell | bidwell@andrews.edu Andrews University Information Technology Services If two always agree, one of them is unnecessary "Friends don't let friends do DOS" "In theory, theory and practice

...few minutes and even blocking IP addresses in case too many users are connected with a traffic other than HTTP, so the only way tic works reliably most of the times is to use TCP . but yet they do shape the session , but if use multiple servers , then everything would get fine and i get much better througput. so what i think is possible to do is to achieve some results like MLPPP . what I have in mind is something like this: ----- TINC ON VPS 1 ---- / \ / \ LAN/PC-------Lin...

...mance test results[1] (tx-frames 16 tx-usecs 16) shows: >> >>> - For guest receiving. No obvious regression on throughput were >> >>> noticed. More cpu utilization were noticed in few cases. >> >>> - For guest transmission. Very huge improvement on througput for >> >>>small >> >>> packet transmission were noticed. This is expected since TSQ >> and >> >>>other >> >>> optimization for small packet transmission work after tx >> interrupt. >> >>>But >>...

...mance test results[1] (tx-frames 16 tx-usecs 16) shows: >> >>> - For guest receiving. No obvious regression on throughput were >> >>> noticed. More cpu utilization were noticed in few cases. >> >>> - For guest transmission. Very huge improvement on througput for >> >>>small >> >>> packet transmission were noticed. This is expected since TSQ >> and >> >>>other >> >>> optimization for small packet transmission work after tx >> interrupt. >> >>>But >>...

...cs 16) shows: > > > >> >>> - For guest receiving. No obvious regression on throughput were > > > >> >>> noticed. More cpu utilization were noticed in few cases. > > > >> >>> - For guest transmission. Very huge improvement on througput for > > > >> >>>small > > > >> >>> packet transmission were noticed. This is expected since TSQ and > > > >> >>>other > > > >> >>> optimization for small packet transmission work after tx > > &...

...e used to reduce tx interrupts. > > Performance test results[1] (tx-frames 16 tx-usecs 16) shows: > > - For guest receiving. No obvious regression on throughput were > noticed. More cpu utilization were noticed in few cases. > - For guest transmission. Very huge improvement on througput for small > packet transmission were noticed. This is expected since TSQ and other > optimization for small packet transmission work after tx interrupt. But > will use more cpu for large packets. > - For TCP_RR, regression (10% on transaction rate and cpu utilization) were >...