headers
Srinidhi M | 7 Feb 2012 15:41
Picon

CPU processing time between using TCP and UDP

Hi All,

We have an application which uses the TCP/UDP packets. The packet
processing time between application and session layers is same for TCP
as well as UDP. However, there is a packet processing time difference
after sending it to layer 4 either TCP or UDP. Generally, we are
calling the socket() API for transmitting the packet. We are seeing
the difference in Linux Network Stack.

Could you please let me know, which module in TCP/IP is consuming more
time than UDP? How can we reduce packet processing time when sending
through TCP stack? Please let me know your thoughts.

Please let me know, the appropriate mailing list name for this type of
questions.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Srinidhi M.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in
the body of a message to majordomo <at> vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
James Carlson | 7 Feb 2012 16:30

Re: CPU processing time between using TCP and UDP

Srinidhi M wrote:
> Could you please let me know, which module in TCP/IP is consuming more
> time than UDP? How can we reduce packet processing time when sending
> through TCP stack? Please let me know your thoughts.

Are you sure you wanted to post this message on the Linux PPP mailing list?

Anyway, without knowing a lot about your application, how you're
measuring things, and what environment you're running in, it's a little
hard to guess at what sort of change you might require.  But I'll give
it a try.

Have you tried setting the TCP_NODELAY option and/or redesigning around
TCP_CORK?  If your application does a lot of tiny write(2) calls, you
will sometimes see RTT delays in delivery.  This is normal, and it's
something that the stack does in order to protect the network against
misbehaving (or just inefficient) applications.  You can disable it in
order to force a write(2) to result in a transmission ... but be careful
if you do this, because doing so can result in a flood of tiny packets
if you (say) write a byte at a time.

Have you considered SCTP instead?  If you have a message-oriented
protocol (rather than a stream-oriented one), and you need reliable
delivery, SCTP may be a better option for you than TCP.

--

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <carlsonj <at> workingcode.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in
the body of a message to majordomo <at> vger.kernel.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
terry white | 7 Feb 2012 19:55
Favicon

Re: CPU processing time between using TCP and UDP

: on "2-7-2012" "Srinidhi M" writ:

: Could you please let me know, which module in TCP/IP is consuming more
: time than UDP? How can we reduce packet processing time when sending
: through TCP stack? Please let me know your thoughts.

... ciao:

    i could be "WAY" off base here, but, i would 'expect' there to be a 
difference.  a connectionless protocol, udp, suggests a "no-wait" interval, 
while 'tcp' demands it.

    i think a more meaningful investigation would compare the linux stack 
vis-a-vis another implementation ...

--

-- 
... it's not what you see ,
    but in stead , notice ...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in
the body of a message to majordomo <at> vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mr.Patrick Otah | 8 Feb 2012 08:28
Picon
Favicon

Be Informed,


Be Informed,

Your Compensation BANK DRAFT worth of ($1.5 Million USD) was converted
into ATM-Card which you can withdraw in any ATM Cash Point Machine
Worldwide .Your ATM Card have been programmed by the issuing bank"
<<UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA» and register it with DHL. for delivery. Contact
DHL COMPANY via Email:(dhlfastcourier <at> w.cn) Mr.Elias Ahoueke Contact them
with your information for delivery.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in
the body of a message to majordomo <at> vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Srinidhi M | 8 Feb 2012 12:43
Picon

Re: CPU processing time between using TCP and UDP

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:00 PM, James Carlson <carlsonj <at> workingcode.com> wrote:
> Srinidhi M wrote:
>> Could you please let me know, which module in TCP/IP is consuming more
>> time than UDP? How can we reduce packet processing time when sending
>> through TCP stack? Please let me know your thoughts.
>
> Are you sure you wanted to post this message on the Linux PPP mailing list?

No. I do not know the exact mailing list name for these type of
questions. First, I mailed to main kernel, but, I did not get any
response. So, I mailed to this group. Please let me know the mailing
list name for posting these type of questions.

> Anyway, without knowing a lot about your application, how you're
> measuring things, and what environment you're running in, it's a little
> hard to guess at what sort of change you might require.  But I'll give
> it a try.

Just using "top" command. No other commands.

> Have you tried setting the TCP_NODELAY option and/or redesigning around
> TCP_CORK?

No. We are not using these options. We will try to change the options
for setsockopt call.

> If your application does a lot of tiny write(2) calls, you
> will sometimes see RTT delays in delivery.  This is normal, and it's
> something that the stack does in order to protect the network against
> misbehaving (or just inefficient) applications.  You can disable it in
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mr Brown William | 11 Feb 2012 12:18
Picon

PROMO!!!


You Won £650,000.00GBP from Sony Ericsson Promotion,Nigeria 2012. Contact Mr Brown William  with
Ticket number: SCP/5000021 (brown_will3030 <at> yahoo.com ) for your winning claims with your
Name,Address,Country,Phone Number
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in
the body of a message to majordomo <at> vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mr Brown William | 11 Feb 2012 13:15
Picon

PROMO!!!


You Won £650,000.00GBP from Sony Ericsson Promotion,Nigeria 2012. Contact Mr Brown William  with
Ticket number: SCP/5000021 (brown_will3030 <at> yahoo.com ) for your winning claims with your
Name,Address,Country,Phone Number
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in
the body of a message to majordomo <at> vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
@@@ | 14 Feb 2012 11:30

Hi Dear


Hello

My name is Kate i would like to be a  friend with you

i have more to discuss with you once i hear from you

thanks

ms kate

==================================================

Hallo

Mein Name ist Kate Ich möchte ein Freund mit dir sein

Ich habe mehr zu besprechen mit Ihnen, sobald ich von Ihnen zu hören

dank

Frau Kate

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in
the body of a message to majordomo <at> vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Rick Blair | 18 Feb 2012 22:11
Picon

PPP to MS RRAS Server Protocol errors

hi all,

I can connect to a microsoft RRAS server on Windows 2003 server.

Setup Fedora 15 64 bit 
Kernel 2.6.41.10-3

I am using wvdial

I successfully authenticate with MS-CHAP V2

PPP options
nobsdcomp
refuse-eap
require-mppe-128
mppe-stateful
noaccomp
nodeflate
nopcomp

Everything looks good,  except every packet I receive from the windows box I get
Unsupported protocol xxxxx received

where xxx seems to have a fairly random value.
Any clues?

Thanks

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Alexey Osipov | 19 Feb 2012 05:52
Picon

Re: PPP to MS RRAS Server Protocol errors

Hi, Rick!

В Сбт, 18/02/2012 в 21:11 +0000, Rick Blair пишет:
> hi all,
> 
> I can connect to a microsoft RRAS server on Windows 2003 server.
> 
> Setup Fedora 15 64 bit 
> Kernel 2.6.41.10-3
> 
> I am using wvdial
> 
> I successfully authenticate with MS-CHAP V2
> 
> PPP options
> nobsdcomp
> refuse-eap
> require-mppe-128
> mppe-stateful
> noaccomp
> nodeflate
> nopcomp
> 
> 
> Everything looks good,  except every packet I receive from the windows box I get
> Unsupported protocol xxxxx received
> 
> where xxx seems to have a fairly random value.
> Any clues?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |

Gmane