FWIW: The bigger picture... Or why I have been asking a lot of questions lately...
Bruce Labitt
bruce.labitt at myfairpoint.net
Sun Oct 11 16:24:45 EDT 2009
Lloyd Kvam wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 15:20 -0400, Bruce Labitt wrote:
>
>> Nit in solution: TCP transport time >> FFT execution time, rendering
>> attempted solution non-viable
>>
>> Researches TCP optimization: Reads countless papers on tcp
>> optimization techniques... Fails to find a robust solutions or
>> methodology for problem. Tries most techniques written in papers,
>> only realizing a 10% gain. Not good enough. Still needs to be faster
>>
>> Driven to more exotic techniques to reduce transport time. Explores
>> parallel sockets, other techniques
>>
>
> Does a simple netcat transfer go fast enough? In other words, can
> normal TCP in a simple case do the job?
>
>
I'll try it when I go back. Netperf seems to indicate I can do it - I
got ~770Mbit/sec. It is kind of baffling that my stuff only gets
141Mbps... :( I was avoiding looking at netperf source, but now appears
to be a good time...
> If not, would you be better off "talking" ethernet? Presumably you do
> not need the routing capabilities of TCP. As I understand it, your
> client and server are on the same LAN.
>
> http://aschauf.landshut.org/fh/linux/udp_vs_raw/index.html
>
> I don't know if this is helpful. Without knowing the timings from basic
> test cases, it's hard to know where to find the best point of attack.
>
>
Thanks for the suggestion and link. I'll check it out.
-Bruce
More information about the gnhlug-discuss
mailing list