From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 11 17:56:08 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3415B1065670 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:56:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linuxmail@4lin.net) Received: from mail.4lin.net (mail.4lin.net [46.4.210.97]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52358FC0C for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:56:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (angelica.4lin.net [127.0.0.1]) by mail.4lin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49242CEC2 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:00:04 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.4lin.net Received: from mail.4lin.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.4lin.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uqnyrYx69FWk for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:00:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mac.fritz.box (ip-109-90-188-179.unitymediagroup.de [109.90.188.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.4lin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B0D52CD1E for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:00:01 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Denny Schierz In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:55:55 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1302516039.3223.222.camel@pcdenny> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re=3A_Network_throughput=3A_Never_get_more_than_1?= =?iso-8859-1?q?12MB/s_=FCber_two_NICs?= X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:56:08 -0000 Am 11.04.2011 um 16:20 schrieb Michael Loftis: > Most switches load balance based on MAC addresses, not IP, unless it > is routing the traffic as a Layer 3 switch then you can enable IP > based load balancing in some of those. Also you might simply be that was the reason, why we disabled the loadbalancer and tested with = plain NICs.=20 > reaching the limits of your firewall box too you haven't mentioned any > of it's specs, nor do you seem to have run top while running the iperf > tests. The clients (who running iperf -c ) had a load near zero, they are = powerful machines (Sun sparcs) with 8 cores and more. The machine, with = 4 Cores (Xeon) who is running "iperf -s", had a load round about ~0.8. No firewall etc. between the hosts, just plain network :-)=20 cu denny=