[Spread-users] spread performance looks not very good for me

wei_hu at agilent.com wei_hu at agilent.com
Tue Dec 9 10:53:59 EST 2003

Actually, I thought about that.  But I did not find anything wrong about the interface.

There is the result of ifconfig.
eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:07:E9:05:60:8D
          inet addr:  Bcast:  Mask:
          RX packets:13789082 errors:206 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:206
          TX packets:513183 errors:4 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:4
          collisions:26948 txqueuelen:100
          RX bytes:459633793 (438.3 Mb)  TX bytes:318403650 (303.6 Mb)
          Interrupt:31 Base address:0x2000 Memory:fe6e0000-0

Looks good?

Did you imply the spread.conf is good?


Wei Hu

-----Original Message-----
From: George Schlossnagle [mailto:george at omniti.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 8:46 AM
To: HU,WEI (A-ColSprings,ex1)
Cc: spread-users at lists.spread.org
Subject: Re: [Spread-users] spread performance looks not very good for

On Dec 9, 2003, at 10:38 AM, <wei_hu at agilent.com> wrote:
> 5.
> run redhook as sender only, and mendecino as receiver only
> mendecino>>./spflooder -m 5000 -s 4803 at mendecino -wo
> output shows sending rate is about 8Mbps.

Anytime I see 8Mbps in a benchmark, I instantly suspect network 
misconfiguration forcing you down to 10fdx or 10hdx.  Do you have any 
interface errors?

More information about the Spread-users mailing list