neil@pio.gid.co.uk (Neil Todd) (04/08/91)
In the next few months I'm going to be required to benchmark a number of IP implementations. I would like to identify some readily available benchmarking packages, further I would like at least one of the packages to be testing in an "industry standard" way. Any ideas ? Neil Neil Todd | ..In general, it is best to assume that the PSI%234237100122::neil | network is filled with malevolent entities neil@gid.co.uk | that will send in packets designed to have Group-ID Ltd | the worst possible effect...
vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) (04/09/91)
I've encountered another "benchmark." First try the 4.3BSD `ping -l9999999 target` and look at the packet rate. There are commercially available UNIX workstations that will deliver the vast majority of the zillion 98-byte ether packets separated by only 9.6 microseconds. The point is I think there are several vendors' workstatsions that can write at or close to ethernet media speed, <<from a user process>>. Second, modify the more recent 4.3BSD-tahoe or reno ping.c to flush the "." and "\b" characters only occassionally or when things get slow, so that `ping -f` does not spend most of its time fiddling with stdio. Then make `ping -f` compute a packet/sec rate to be displayed at the end. This produces nice numbers that seem to vary depending on the speed of the machines on both ends. Neither of these are very interesting benchmarks; they're just fun. Ttcp is better for TCP or UDP, and FTP for overall file system and network speed. Vernon Schryver, vjs@sgi.com
reschly@BRL.MIL ("Robert J. Reschly Jr.") (04/12/91)
> > I've encountered another "benchmark." > > First try the 4.3BSD `ping -l9999999 target` and look at the packet rate. > ...but before you do that, be sure your mbuf code is fixed. On BSD systems of early 4.3TAHOE vintage or earlier, you could get an mbuf panic from all those unprocessed ICMP Echo Replies. Sure surprised us. Later, Bob P.S. It has been long enough to forget the exact details, but it was caused by a mget() with DONT_WAIT flag set on a receive, or something like that.
vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) (04/14/91)
In article <9104120230.aa07219@SPARK.BRL.MIL>, reschly@BRL.MIL ("Robert J. Reschly Jr.") writes: > > > First try the 4.3BSD `ping -l9999999 target` and look at the packet rate. > > > ...but before you do that, be sure your mbuf code is fixed. On BSD > systems of early 4.3TAHOE vintage or earlier, you could get an mbuf > panic from all those unprocessed ICMP Echo Replies. I'll take your word for that. To really test things, you don't want the replies cluttering up the net, causing collisions. I forgot to mention that you want to add a suitable entry to your ARP cache so you can blast something that won't blast back. And the best 9.6 usec numbers need an otherwise quiet net. Of course, these fun games would be considered denial-of-service attacks by anyone trying to use the ethernet for real work. Vernon Schryver, vjs@sgi.com