Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems

2005-08-27 Thread Danial Thom
--- "Vladimir B. Savkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 11:08:43PM -0700, > Danial Thom wrote: > > If your test is still set up, try compiling > > something large while doing the test. The > drops > > go through the roof in my

Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems

2005-08-26 Thread Danial Thom
--- Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Danial Thom wrote: > > > > > > --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >

Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems

2005-08-25 Thread Danial Thom
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Danial Thom wrote: > > > > --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > >>Danial Thom wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made &g

Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems

2005-08-25 Thread Danial Thom
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Danial Thom wrote: > > > The tests I reported where on UP systems. > Perhaps > > the default settings are better for this in > 2.4, > > since that is what I used, and you used your > > hacks for both. >

Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems

2005-08-25 Thread Danial Thom
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Danial Thom wrote: > > > > --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > >>Danial Thom wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made &g

Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems

2005-08-24 Thread Danial Thom
--- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Danial Thom wrote: > > > I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made > trade > > offs that lower raw throughput, which is what > a > > networking device needs. So as a router or > > network appliance, 2.6 seem