From owner-freebsd-net  Thu Oct  4 10:18:52 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp1.sentex.ca (smtp1.sentex.ca [199.212.134.4])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E93C37B405
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Thu,  4 Oct 2001 10:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simoeon.sentex.net (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18])
	by smtp1.sentex.ca (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f94HIl379109;
	Thu, 4 Oct 2001 13:18:47 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from mike@sentex.net)
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011004130347.04a295a0@marble.sentex.ca>
X-Sender: mdtpop@marble.sentex.ca
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 13:12:24 -0400
To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org>
From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>
Subject: Re: How to increase TCP and UDP buffers (for IPv4/IPv6)
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <200110041700.f94H0ZQ45166@iguana.aciri.org>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011004122716.0408d470@marble.sentex.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-net.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-net>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-net>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

At 10:00 AM 10/4/01 -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > I guess in my case, the load average is general 0.00, but that is just
> > measuring userland activity no ?  Is there a way to allocate more CPU to
>
>yes... "top" should tell you how much time you spend in kernel space,
>though, and that could be an indication.

Strange, its idle as well. top is the most active process, and the 
interrupts are at about 10% at the max.



> > dont think I can implement fast_forwarding-- or am I thinking of something
> > else?
>
>fast_forwarding helps in the sense that it bypasses the queue and
>calls directly ip_input at interrupt time. The fact that it also
>uses a cache for routes is only an optimization.
>
>I am not sure how bad would it be to add code for full route lookups
>in ipflow_fastforwarding, i might try and have a look at this
>in a week or two once i am done with some (partly related)
>work i am doing.


Hmmm... Do you think I should enable it ?  Will it hurt in my case for the 
large routing table ?


Thanks again!

         ---Mike


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message