-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
Add a flag to use write(2) on the connected socket instead of send(2). #48
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
| " -R remoteprog path of udpbench tool on remote side\n" | ||
| " -r remotessh ssh host to start udpbench on remote side\n" | ||
| " -t timeout send duration or receive timeout, default 1\n" | ||
| " -w use write(2) instead of send(2)\n" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the -m usage does not add (2) after the syscall names.
|
Is there any indication that write(2) does something different than send(2)? In OpenBSD the implementation is the same. Why do you want to test this? |
|
My patch for udpbench aimed to investigate the performance differences between iperf3 and udpbench on Linux. The tests revealed that the write system call results in performance closer to that of iperf3. With the patch, I found that the difference in the number of UDP datagrams sent was about 3% with write(2) and about 6% with send(2). https://mbuhl.me/t0.iperf-b0.svg Here are my notes on the experiments I did, I would appreciate it if you could approach the data critically and provide honest feedback. nstatiperf3 3.17.1udpbenchudpbench -wudpbench -m 1024Calculationsstraceudpbench -m 1024udpbenchiperf3EvaluationConclusionusing write(2) instead of send(2) causes the throughput values of |
|
This has been resolved and merged in pull request #66. |
No description provided.