network load 8245 vs. 8347E

Marc Leeman marc.leeman at gmail.com
Fri Jun 22 04:33:50 EST 2007


> Isn't it just because the Intel  chipset is a REALLY nice ethernet
> controller and the integrated one in the 8347E isn't as good? :)

Well, that's something what I'm afraid off: that for any kind of decent
network performance we'd need an external chipset. But there are some
other hickups we need to investigate with the 8347.

I just hope it's either a configuration problem, a not so efficient
driver implementation -> no re-design :)

> You could try turning the interrupt coaelescing off in the e100
> driver and see how well it does, then. Or knock the bundling
> threshold or timer down to something similar to the 8347E is using..
> or turn the ones on the 8347E up to match the ones the e100 driver
> is using :)
> 
> All these options used to be modprobe options but the latest
> e100 driver seems to hardcode a bunch of them probably for best
> performance. Anyway, putting them on a level peg would mean at
> least you are comparing onboard apples with pci apples.

I started doing this this evening, but at first glance, changing sysfs
params (on the gianfar driver) didn't change much.

I'll start comparing 8245/e100/2.4.34, 8245/e100/2.6.17 and
8347E/gianfar/2.6.21.1 tomorrow.

Anyway a load of 30% for a single process where an older processor only
takes around 5% seems too much of a difference to be solved with simple
parameter settings.

-- 
  greetz, marc
Open your ears, or your tentacles, or whatever orifice it is you
listen with!
	Crichton - Back and Back and Back to the Future
chiana 2.6.18-4-ixp4xx #1 Tue Mar 27 18:01:56 BST 2007 GNU/Linux
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/attachments/20070621/5fa84581/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list