[netperf-talk] Re: Difficultly in understanding the CPU utilization
results for UDP stream test
Brijraj Vaghani
brijrajv at gmail.com
Tue Jul 3 11:41:07 PDT 2007
results inlined
On 7/3/07, Rick Jones <rick.jones2 at hp.com> wrote:
> > I am sorry to have removed netperf-talk from the thread. I got a
> > delivery failure twice, when trying to cc netperf-talk and that is why
> > I removed it.
>
> Did it say something about the list being closed? (Lets take that part
> offline)
> >> At the risk of showing I've already forgotten the start of this thread,
> >> does the bogus CPU util also appear with TCP_STREAM using the same
> >> "pacing" values?
> >
> > I carried out the same test for TCP_STREAM and below are the results
> > which I got
> >
> > Recv Send Send
> > Utilization Service Demand
> > Socket Socket Message Elapsed Send
> > Recv Send Recv
> > Size Size Size Time Throughput local
> > remote local remote
> > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/s % U
> > % S us/KB us/KB
> >
> > 87380 16384 1024 121.18 0.08 -1.00
> > 12.90 -1.000 13028.73
> >
> > Recv Send Send Utilization
> > Service Demand
> > Socket Socket Message Elapsed Send Recv
> > Send Recv
> > Size Size Size Time Throughput local remote
> > local remote
> > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/s % S % U
> > us/KB us/KB
> >
> > 87380 16384 1024 121.18 0.08 21.98 -1.00
> > 22194.559 -1.000
>
> OK, next test :) Allow the bitrate to be much higher.
I generated two more results for UDP_STREAM with throughputs of 0.8
Mbps and 8 Mbps
Socket Message Elapsed Messages CPU
Service
Size Size Time Okay Errors Throughput Util
Demand
bytes bytes secs # # 10^6bits/sec
% US us/KB
110592 1024 10.10 1000 0 0.8
-1.00 -1.000
110592 10.10 1000 0.8
21.72 2193.020
Socket Message Elapsed Messages CPU
Service
Size Size Time Okay Errors Throughput Util
Demand
bytes bytes secs # # 10^6bits/sec
% US us/KB
110592 1024 10.20 10000 0 8.0
-1.00 -1.000
110592 10.20 10000 8.0
26.11 266.328
Still the numbers dont seem good. While carrying the above test, I
ran TOP as well. The numbers looked quite realistic in there (ard 1 -
2 %).
>
> thanks,
>
> rick
>
More information about the netperf-talk
mailing list