Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:09:41 -0700 From: "Sam Leffler" <sam@errno.com> To: "Petri Helenius" <pete@he.iki.fi>, "Lars Eggert" <larse@ISI.EDU> Cc: "Luigi Rizzo" <rizzo@icir.org>, <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: ENOBUFS Message-ID: <22e001c2752e$7179d370$52557f42@errno.com> 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> <071501c274db$222c3ea0$8c2a40c1@PHE>
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. > Try my port of the netbsd kttcp kernel module. You can find it at http://www.freebsd.org/~sam It will eliminate the system calls. Don't recall if you said your system is a dual-processor; I never tried it on SMP hardware. Sam 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?22e001c2752e$7179d370$52557f42>