Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:39:12 +0100 From: Volker <volker@vwsoft.com> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: Greg Hennessy <Greg.Hennessy@nviz.net>, freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ALTQ support for usb NICs? Message-ID: <45BFE530.6060406@vwsoft.com> In-Reply-To: <200701300020.52770.max@love2party.net> References: <000301c742ee$ff867500$0201a8c0@d620> <200701300020.52770.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/30/07 00:20, Max Laier wrote: > On Sunday 28 January 2007 16:14, Greg Hennessy wrote: >>> Anyway, I've already checked altq(9) which describes the >>> driver transition and I thought about patching the drivers myself. >>> >>> I've got a bunch of aue, one kue and a few currently unsupported >>> NICs. >> I could find a use for an altq patched aue ta muchly. > > aue and kue patches added to > http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/ALTQ_driver/ > > Please test and report back. > Max, WFM. Patched against RELENG_6, tested with ALTQ disabled and enabled on that interface. Using netperf I do see a (significant) drop in performace (using really just one simple pf rule, two cbq queues - so not really ideally) but as I need ALTQ for limiting some traffic on that interface, it's ok. While it's ok for me to see a drop in throughput, I'm really wondering about. Using netperf, patched driver, ALTQ disabled I get values like: Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 32768 32768 65536 60.07 4.78 Using the unpatched (1.90.2.6) driver I get: 32768 32768 65536 60.04 5.78 The only difference between those two tests, has been a patched if_aue.c and a new buildkernel. No (or not that I'm aware of) other code changes should have been fetched from cvs between both kernel builds. Beside the throughput question, the patch seems to be ok - please commit! ;) Greetings, Volker
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45BFE530.6060406>