From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 27 16:21:40 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD068106566C for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:21:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ddg@yan.com.br) Received: from mail.mastercabo.com.br (mail.mastercabo.com.br [189.91.0.40]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1415A8FC23 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:21:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ddg@yan.com.br) Received: (qmail 91718 invoked by uid 1008); 27 Apr 2009 16:21:38 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5-unknown (2008-06-10) on srvmail1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=4.8 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.5-unknown Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.169?) (daniel@dgnetwork.com.br@189.91.0.65) by mail.mastercabo.com.br with SMTP; 27 Apr 2009 16:21:38 -0000 Message-ID: <49F5DB12.7080502@yan.com.br> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:19:30 -0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Dias_Gon=E7alves?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Smith References: <49F06985.1000303@yan.com.br> <49F08071.1070905@ibctech.ca> <49F1D992.9000001@yan.com.br> <20090425024635.O89549@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <20090425024635.O89549@sola.nimnet.asn.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, Steve Bertrand , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPFW MAX RULES COUNT PERFORMANCE X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ddg@yan.com.br List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:21:41 -0000 What may be happening ? I'm with polling enabled on all interfaces, can you influence ? em0: port 0x7000-0x703f mem 0xdfa00000-0xdfa1ffff irq 16 at device 8.0 on pci4 em1: port 0x7400-0x743f mem 0xdfa20000-0xdfa3ffff irq 17 at device 8.1 on pci4 em2: port 0x8000-0x803f mem 0xdfb00000-0xdfb1ffff irq 16 at device 8.0 on pci5 em3: port 0x8400-0x843f mem 0xdfb20000-0xdfb3ffff irq 17 at device 8.1 on pci5 em4: port 0x9000-0x903f mem 0xdfc00000-0xdfc1ffff irq 16 at device 8.0 on pci7 em5: port 0x9400-0x943f mem 0xdfc20000-0xdfc3ffff irq 17 at device 8.1 on pci7 em6: port 0xa000-0xa03f mem 0xdfd00000-0xdfd1ffff irq 16 at device 8.0 on pci8 em7: port 0xa400-0xa43f mem 0xdfd20000-0xdfd3ffff irq 17 at device 8.1 on pci8 fxp0: port 0xb000-0xb03f mem 0xdfe20000-0xdfe20fff,0xdfe00000-0xdfe1ffff irq 16 at device 4.0 on pci14 If I disable the polling, no network interface work, begins to display "em4 watchdog timeout". Ian Smith escreveu: > On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Daniel Dias Gonçalves wrote: > > > The latency in the interface em6 increased an average of 10ms to 200 ~ 300ms > > Hardware: > > CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.20GHz (3200.13-MHz 686-class CPU) > > Logical CPUs per core: 2 > > FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 4 CPUs > > cpu0: on acpi0 > > p4tcc0: on cpu0 > > cpu1: on acpi0 > > p4tcc1: on cpu1 > > cpu2: on acpi0 > > p4tcc2: on cpu2 > > cpu3: on acpi0 > > p4tcc3: on cpu3 > > SMP: AP CPU #1 Launched! > > SMP: AP CPU #3 Launched! > > SMP: AP CPU #2 Launched! > > > > real memory = 9663676416 (9216 MB) > > avail memory = 8396738560 (8007 MB) > > In that case, there really is something else wrong. By my measurements, > rummaging through most of >1000 rules on a old 166MHz Pentium to get to > the icmp allow rules (ridiculous, I know) added about 2ms to local net > pings via that box, ie 1ms each pass for about 900 rules, mostly counts. > > cheers, Ian