From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Nov 14 23:40: 6 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from whale.sunbay.crimea.ua (whale.sunbay.crimea.ua [212.110.138.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4908E37B4C5 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:39:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from ru@localhost) by whale.sunbay.crimea.ua (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eAF7dc736692; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:39:38 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from ru) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:39:38 +0200 From: Ruslan Ermilov To: sanjeev singh Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: natd limiting download speed? Message-ID: <20001115093938.A36400@sunbay.com> Mail-Followup-To: sanjeev singh , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from remraf@hobbiton.org on Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:20:01PM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:20:01PM -0600, sanjeev singh wrote: > > Hello, > > I recently set up an ipfw+natd machine (FreeBSD 3.5.1R) for sharing my = > cable connection. Unfortunately, natd appears to be limiting the = > maximum bandwidth available! > This is because natd(8) is a userspace solution, and every packet is copied twice, first from kernel space to user space, and then back from user space to kernel space. > Using netperf, I have established that I can get up to just under 4mbps = > with natd enabled, and 4.3mbps with it disabled. This might not look = > like a big deal, except that in the former case, my CPU is fully loaded = > whereas in the latter it's only at 50%! > > Also, when testing high speed downloads (from netscape.com), I get the = > following results: > Download speed: ~350+KB/s > CPU States: 50-60% system, ~35% interrupt and <10% idle > natd takes up 80% of WCPU and CPU > > My firewall machine is a 486/66 (32MB Ram) with an NE2K and a Dec DE = > 201. Are these results in the ballpark or could I have configured = > something wrong? > > If these results are in the ballpark, what can I do to improve the = > situation (short of upgrading my firewall machine)? Is there a more = > CPU-efficient version of natd available? Should I try ipfilter/ipnat? > You decide :-) -- Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA, ru@sunbay.com Sunbay Software AG, ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message