From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <36557fae3384ae433109a2cbc5c820fd@plan9.bell-labs.com> From: David Presotto To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] In-Reply-To: <20030206113325.O535@fbsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-ksgsbfvtlbdeefvzczlwraiies" Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:43:08 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 52387428-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-ksgsbfvtlbdeefvzczlwraiies Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'll try to reproduce it but I believe that's the bug we fixed. I'll let you know after I try. --upas-ksgsbfvtlbdeefvzczlwraiies Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from plan9.cs.bell-labs.com ([135.104.9.2]) by plan9; Thu Feb 6 13:36:25 EST 2003 Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by plan9; Thu Feb 6 13:36:22 EST 2003 Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.4.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 29F77199B3; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:36:07 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: from fbsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (fbsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca [136.159.7.68]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id CBB01199BE for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:35:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from fbsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fbsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h16IZHLp001220 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:35:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mirtchov@cpsc.ucalgary.ca) Received: from localhost (mirtchov@localhost) by fbsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with ESMTP id h16IZGoA001217 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:35:16 -0700 (MST) X-Authentication-Warning: fbsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca: mirtchov owned process doing -bs From: andrey mirtchovski To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] In-Reply-To: <7256bf2df02af553e48028e5332340bf@plan9.bell-labs.com> Message-ID: <20030206113325.O535@fbsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca> References: <7256bf2df02af553e48028e5332340bf@plan9.bell-labs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:35:16 -0700 (MST) this is the last message on this subject: https://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/2002-May/017658.html (it doesn't appear on groups.google.com though, I don't know why -- maybe the pics attached are to blame?) indeed we were able to measure improvement in speed, but the behaviour was still strange, yet even stranger when iostats was involved. andrey On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, David Presotto wrote: > I was under the impression that Dong and I had fixed the TCP problems LANL was > having. Is this incorrect? Could you tell me what's still slow? I really > do want our IP stack to stay competative. Our next move is to take advantage > of the hardware checksuming on the gigabit boards since, in our most recent > testing, we seem to differ from BSD speeds most because of that. --upas-ksgsbfvtlbdeefvzczlwraiies--