From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 25 14:17:15 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0E516A4CE for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:17:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from avscan2.sentex.ca (avscan2.sentex.ca [199.212.134.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0053543D39 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:17:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from localhost (localhost.sentex.ca [127.0.0.1]) by avscan2.sentex.ca (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8PEHD06065927; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:17:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from avscan2.sentex.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (avscan2.sentex.ca [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 65735-03; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:17:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by avscan2.sentex.ca (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8PEHDHH065914; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:17:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from simian.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8PEH6Em062707; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:17:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.0.20040925101551.108f0a00@64.7.153.2> X-Sender: mdtpop@64.7.153.2 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:22:44 -0400 To: TM4525@aol.com From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <96.1619dbfe.2e86d343@aol.com> References: <96.1619dbfe.2e86d343@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at avscan2b cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Device polling performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:17:15 -0000 At 09:57 AM 25/09/2004, TM4525@aol.com wrote: Hi, > As long as all your interfaces support polling, you should see >hardly see any interrupt usage at all, as that is the whole point of >polling. You can allocate more or less CPU cycles to flinging packets >around via various sysctl settings. See the polling man pages for >more info > > ---Mike > >Thanks, but that doesn't answer the question. Since polling cycles don't >seem to be shown under any usage category, how do you know what your >system usage is when polling is enabled? It seems like a big negative to me. Read the MAN page. There is a whole section there on a number of MIB variables that display various statistics around polling. 50% of the CPU cycles are allocated to the system by default. If that 50% is used up, it will show up in top under system processes in top. Given a decent CPU, you wont see very much of a load average at all in the 200Kpps / 100Mb range. ---Mike > >Tommy