From owner-freebsd-net Wed Oct 16 9: 9:47 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02EDD37B401 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:09:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [66.127.85.87]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C88343E9C for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:09:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from melange (melange.errno.com [66.127.85.82]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.12.5/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g9GG9f1H004556 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:09:45 -0700 (PDT)?g (envelope-from sam@errno.com)œ X-Authentication-Warning: ebb.errno.com: Host melange.errno.com [66.127.85.82] claimed to be melange Message-ID: <22e001c2752e$7179d370$52557f42@errno.com> From: "Sam Leffler" To: "Petri Helenius" , "Lars Eggert" Cc: "Luigi Rizzo" , 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> Subject: Re: ENOBUFS Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:09:41 -0700 Organization: Errno Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > 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