From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 2 08:54:01 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA6D31065672 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:54:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from if@xip.at) Received: from chile.gbit.at (ns1.xip.at [193.239.188.99]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F8A8FC17 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:54:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from if@xip.at) Received: (qmail 30532 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2008 10:54:00 +0200 Received: from unknown (HELO filebunker.xip.at) (86.59.10.180) by chile.gbit.at with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 2 Jul 2008 10:54:00 +0200 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:54:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Flaschberger To: Paul In-Reply-To: <486B41D5.3060609@gtcomm.net> Message-ID: References: <4867420D.7090406@gtcomm.net> <200806301944.m5UJifJD081781@lava.sentex.ca> <20080701004346.GA3898@stlux503.dsto.defence.gov.au> <20080701010716.GF3898@stlux503.dsto.defence.gov.au> <486986D9.3000607@monkeybrains.net> <48699960.9070100@gtcomm.net> <20080701033117.GH83626@cdnetworks.co.kr> <4869ACFC.5020205@gtcomm.net> <4869B025.9080006@gtcomm.net> <486A7E45.3030902@gtcomm.net> <486A8F24.5010000@gtcomm.net> <486A9A0E.6060308@elischer.org> <486B41D5.3060609@gtcomm.net> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: FreeBSD Net Subject: Re: Freebsd IP Forwarding performance (question, and some info) [7-stable, current, em, smp] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:54:02 -0000 Dear Paul, > SMP DISABLED on my Opteron 2212 (ULE, Preemption on) > Yields ~750kpps in em0 and out em1 (one direction) > I am miffed why this yields more pps than > a) with all 4 cpus running and b) 4 cpus with lagg load balanced over 3 > incoming connections so 3 taskq threads because less locking, less synchronisation, .... > I would be willing to set up test equipment (several servers plugged into a > switch) with ipkvm and power port access > if someone or a group of people want to figure out ways to improve the > routing process, ipfw, and lagg. > > Maximum PPS with one ipfw rule on UP: > tops out about 570Kpps.. almost 200kpps lower ? (frown) can you post the rule here? > I'm going to drop in a 3ghz opteron instead of the 2ghz 2212 that's in here > and see how that scales, using UP same kernel etc I have now. really, please try 32bit and 1 cpu. Kind regards, Ingo Flaschberger