RTX 與 Windows 以太網性能分析

trueleven

RTX 下使用普通網卡即可實現實時以太網的性能。作者對 RTX 與 Windows 下以太網性能進行了對比測試來驗證該觀點。

1. 測試環(huán)境
       Windows XP 操作系統, RTX 使用Dedicated 模式, 單獨占用一顆 CPU 核, 硬件使用 Core i7, 4 核8 線程, 2.8GHz 主頻, 4GB 內存, 兩塊 Intel 82545GM 千兆網卡點對點互聯。

2. 測試方法
       RTX 環(huán)境下, 測試方法為兩臺機器分別運行RT Client 和 RT Server 兩個 RTSS 應用程序, RT Client 發(fā)送數據包到 RT Server, RT Server 收到數據包之后發(fā)送回 RT Client。使用 TCP/IP & UDP 協議, 選擇不同的包長度, 每次發(fā)送500 個數據包, 重復 20 次Windows 環(huán)境下, 兩臺機器分別運行 Client 和 Server 兩個應用程序, Client 發(fā)送數據包到 Server, Server 收到數據包之后發(fā)送回 Client。使用 TCP/IP & UDP 協議, 選擇不同的包長度, 每次發(fā)送500 個數據包, 重復 20 次。

3. 測試結果

RTX 環(huán)境, TCP/IP 協議測試結果	Windows 環(huán)境, TCP/IP 協議測試結果
Packet Size = 1 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 35 us Maximum Time = 54 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0	--
Packet Size = 16 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 36 us Maximum Time = 55 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0	Packet Size = 16 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 55 us Maximum Time = 199 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0
Packet Size = 32 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 37 us Maximum Time = 54 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0	Packet Size = 32 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 58 us Maximum Time = 196 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0
Packet Size = 64 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 39 us Maximum Time = 51 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0	Packet Size = 64 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 58 us Maximum Time = 3400 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0
Packet Size = 128 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 42 us Maximum Time = 59 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0	Packet Size = 128 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 55 us Maximum Time = 166 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0
Packet Size = 256 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 50 us Maximum Time = 71 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0	Packet Size = 256 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 79 us Maximum Time = 653 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0
Packet Size = 512 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 64 us Maximum Time = 92 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0	Packet Size = 512 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 122 us Maximum Time = 495 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0
Packet Size = 1024 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 92 us Maximum Time = 111 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0	Packet Size = 1024 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 212 us Maximum Time = 716 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0
Packet Size = 1462 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 117 us Maximum Time = 633 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0	--
Packet Size = 2048 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 124 us Maximum Time = 632 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0	Packet Size = 2048 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 165 us Maximum Time = 709 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0
Packet Size = 4096 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 188 us Maximum Time = 695 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0	Packet Size = 4096 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 232 us Maximum Time = 565 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0
Packet Size = 8192 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 289 us Maximum Time = 1083 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0	Packet Size = 8192 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 348 us Maximum Time = 946 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0
Packet Size = 65535 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 1643 us Maximum Time = 2707 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0	Packet Size = 65535 bytes Connections = 1 Messages / Connection = 10000 Minimum Time = 2244 us Maximum Time = 2591 us Errors = 0 Lost Packets = 0

4 測試數據分析
       使用 TCP/IP 協議, 當傳輸的數據包長度低于1460 上限時, RTX 下數據包傳輸的實時性明顯優(yōu)于 Windows 。當傳輸數據包長度超過 1460 上限的大包時, RTX 在應用層分包, Windows 下在 IP 層自動分包。由于 TCP 協議數據傳輸的可靠性要求, RTX 下大數據包需要接收多次數據包 ACK 報文, RTX 下數據包傳輸的實時性與 Windows 相當。使用 UDP 協議傳輸時, 由于 UDP 協議不需要數據包ACK 報文, RTX 實時性得以體現, RTX 下數據包傳輸的實時性明顯優(yōu)于 Windows 。

5 結論
1）使用 TCP/IP 協議, 相比于 Windows, RTX 在傳輸小包(數據包長度低于 1460) 時有明顯的實時性。
2）使用 UDP 協議, 相比于 Windows, RTX 在數據包傳輸時有明顯的實時性。