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