From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 11 15:17:37 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02480106566B for ; Mon, 11 May 2009 15:17:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deeptech71@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f216.google.com (mail-fx0-f216.google.com [209.85.220.216]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839518FC0C for ; Mon, 11 May 2009 15:17:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deeptech71@gmail.com) Received: by fxm12 with SMTP id 12so2796204fxm.43 for ; Mon, 11 May 2009 08:17:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1NkMjweEoN7m1P8X3XTvNFujPZiNtpHx+IK3pdL9fW8=; b=Xl39PlG8Q2N/y+cSGA83wetXkl/cZs9HQOgymAwFZbPp+baJwLJUMzLtExafIhP4EK bLHIM6e7tz8PuspBJPsmXS+LX1tVwlMV0cC5QRzc9XYV1WrFR2/56DLTeyRAnsjp4vli 26dAp5+ohUWILIenPWClaFvwdGLSWnZVoGt1M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=eai9nactsil+r1IYt8okBfCGD18F4byzcoMCrmfpYw7Ue3wv7vl6A52YNgVnp4jAMi irRFw2+PkiNQeRNadbFf0sYIqy4xlGQt4BIZ8kvK1sIJpS05OhRYlyTeryXX6IdH4o1c V/td/VJxzSIVbLNjXl9NtGHnmWDVNRpGtmXAU= Received: by 10.86.49.13 with SMTP id w13mr6555058fgw.31.1242055055588; Mon, 11 May 2009 08:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?157.181.96.136? (quark.teteny.elte.hu [157.181.96.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d6sm6981816fga.27.2009.05.11.08.17.34 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 11 May 2009 08:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A084225.4060201@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:20:05 +0200 From: deeptech71@gmail.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090303 SeaMonkey/1.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: ping wars X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:17:37 -0000 One day me and my roommate had some fun spamming eachother with icmp ping packets. FreeBSD vs Arch(?)Linux. Me, that is, my FreeBSD installation managed to spam ~50000 packets per second towards the him, the Linux distro, with a packet loss ratio of ~0%. (If I remember correctly:) During sending, I used around 35% CPU (that's what top showed; note: I had HT enabled), while he had neligible (~3%) CPU usage. In the other ping direction, I was suffering from 20% CPU usage (most of which was in top's interrupt counter) while receiving unknown* amount of packets per second, and packet loss was >95% [I sysctl'd the icmp reply limit to 999999999], even though he was yet again using neligible CPU percentage. *First he just ran "ping -i0" (per-line printing enabled) which gave 3000 packets per second, maybe because of his slow X terminal. I replied to that well (~100%). Then he silenced the verbosity and set some buffering(?) for the packets. That was the actual test. So what does this mean? Does it mean that the FreeBSD kernel sucks at working on spam efficiently, or is it netcard specific and the card basically "steals" the CPU time? And is it possible that the Linux distro had "internal packet loss", so it wasn't FreeBSD who was sluggish? If so, I kindly ask for instruction on how to get the incoming&outgoing packet count or other net stats.