> 
> Hi:
> 
>   The bulk of your questions are really oriented on file system performance, 
> so it may be best if you post this in the file system project.  If I had to 
> guess, I'd say it's probably because you installed using fs-qnx6.  This file 
> system was designed for robustness and is meant to handle things like power 
> outages without resulting in corruption.  This would have to be confirmed by 
> the file system people though.
> 
> In terms of the slight degradation in qnet performance, I'll have to take a 
> closer look.  Do you have sample test code available for me to try out?  We 
> have our own internal code, but it would be useful to see what you've written.
>   The slight reduction could be due to the trade off we made during the design
>  stage to provide optimised IP performance.  This means that the way that we 
> hook qnet into the stack is not quite as optimized as it was with io-net.  
> 
>    Robert.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juan Manuel Placco [mailto:community-noreply@qnx.com]
> Sent: Wed 11/19/2008 9:53 PM
> To: technology-networking
> Subject: Re: RE: QNX 6.4 - QNX 6.3 Comparison
>  
> Hi Robert, and thanks for the reply!! 
> 
> I need some specific answers to my little work if possible.
> 
> Here's the attachment (I hope)
> 
> Regards,
> Juan Manuel
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Technology
> http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post16944
> 

HI Robert, thank you for your always quick answer!

So, according to what I understood, I would have to wait for a small degradation of efficiency for native networking 
(resources managers, message passing, and so on...), but a better one working with IP protocol, for example if I a do 
some UDP packets broadcasting?

With respect to file systems, yes, I was exactly testing the performance of 'fs-qnx6' vs 'fs-qnx4'. And I'll post those 
questions to file system project as you suggest. 

I'll post later the sources (actually, they're very simple.) with which I made the tests. I'm having asome problems 
uploading files to this forum, since I'm behind a strange proxy. 

Thanks you very much again!

Regards,
Juan Manuel

Hi Andrew, thank you very much for the reply!

1) Actually the size of the message is fixed and is 1024 bytes. The idea was to maintain the same scheme in 6.3 and 6.4.
 But I'll try differents ones!

2) That's a very good question. Actually I don't know how does that 'shim' work. Maybe you can help me to find 
documentation.

>> Are you running the "shim" and an io-net devn-*.so driver with
io-pkt, or are you running the io-pkt devnp-*.so driver? ...

>> The reason I ask is that when you run the "shim"
with an io-net driver ....

I can see "devnp-shim.so" loaded in my DEV1 io-pkt-v4-hc not in 'io-net'. I'm a little confused here...

The configuration is the default one (one assumes that's the one that detects the enum-devices in rc.devices at sysinit,
 isn't it?, When does 'devnp-shim.so' module is loaded?  )

Well, this is the scenario you ask for:

DEV1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a DELL Optiplex GX520
NIC: Broadcom®5751 Gigabit Ethernet LAN solution 10/100/10001 Ethernet with Remote Wake Up and PXE support

QNX 6.3

enum-devices -n
mount -Tio-net -opci=0,vid=0x14e4,did=0x1677 /lib/dll/devn-tigon3.so

pidin -P io-net mem
 ...
          libc.so.2             ...
          npm-tcpip.so
-->     devn-tigon3.so     
          npm-qnet.so        
          sbin/io-net           
          sbin/io-net           

QNX 6.4 

enum-devices -n
mount -Tio-pkt -opci=0,vid=0x14e4,did=0x1677 /lib/dll/devn-tigon3.so

pidin -P io-pkt-v4-hc mem
...
          io-pkt-v4-hc       ...
          libc.so.3          
          devnp-shim.so      
-->     devn-tigon3.so     
          lsm-qnet.so        
          /dev/mem           


DEV2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a DELL Optiplex 170/L
NIC: Intel 10/100Mbps Ethernet with Remote Wake-up and PXE support

QNX 6.3

enum-devices -n
mount -Tio-net -opci=0,vid=0x8086,did=0x1050 /lib/dll/devn-speedo.so

pidin -Pio-net mem
...
         libc.so.2          ...
         npm-tcpip.so
-->     devn-speedo.so     
         npm-qnet.so        
         sbin/io-net        
         sbin/io-net        

QNX 6.4

enum-devices -n
mount -Tio-pkt -opci=0,vid=0x8086,did=0x1050 /lib/dll/devnp-speedo.so

pidin -P io-pkt-v4-hc mem
...
          io-pkt-v4-hc     ...
          libc.so.3
-->     devnp-speedo.so
          lsm-qnet.so

Hey btw, why can't I see 'npm-tcpip.so' module or similar in io-pkt ?

So, that 'shim' could be the cause of the small degradation of the performance ?

Thank you very much. I found this ver interesting for me!

Regards,
Juan Manuel