Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:13:20 +0300 From: "Petri Helenius" <pete@he.iki.fi> To: "Lars Eggert" <larse@ISI.EDU> Cc: "Luigi Rizzo" <rizzo@icir.org>, <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: ENOBUFS Message-ID: <071501c274db$222c3ea0$8c2a40c1@PHE> References: <065901c27495$56a94c40$8c2a40c1@PHE> <3DAC8FAD.30601@isi.edu> <068b01c2749f$32e7cf70$8c2a40c1@PHE> <20021015161055.A27443@carp.icir.org> <06c901c274d8$e5280b80$8c2a40c1@PHE> <3DAD01A7.3020807@isi.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The 900Mbps are similar to what I see here on similar hardware. What kind of receive performance do you observe? I haven´t got that far yet. > > For your two-interface setup, are the 600Mbps aggregate send rate on > both interfaces, or do you see 600Mbps per interface? In the latter 600Mbps per interface. I´m going to try this out also on -CURRENT to see if it changes anything. Interrupts do not seem to pose a big problem because I´m seeing only a few thousand em interrupts a second but since every packet involves a write call there are >100k syscalls a second. > case, is your CPU maxed out? Only one can be in the kernel under > -stable, so the second one won't help much. With small packets like > that, you may be interrupt-bound. (Until Luigi releases polling for em > interfaces... :-) > I´ll try changing the packet sizes to figure out optimum. Pete To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?071501c274db$222c3ea0$8c2a40c1>