From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 30 05:51:30 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C22516A412 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:51:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linicks@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.191]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B211343C9D for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:51:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linicks@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id x37so2964290nfc for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:51:28 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=B4m9gaIMwTWszuoqAMmKM+v4ihuXR9S6osmBSrlRqeFfYBum5XALHv73MYtqLaVnzqQaPDg2RItwGhsGBAdBGiEElpBHtqzOL6VAxrQ4k7vEN3baMqX6LwlbB3ylQJF2S6N+nw5NuMnG2eFeu8H/OMk0S+x1g37LGhhM1b+Bhsw= Received: by 10.82.114.3 with SMTP id m3mr750765buc.1164865887926; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:51:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.174.13 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:51:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:51:27 -0700 From: "Nick Pavlica" To: "Mike Tancsa" In-Reply-To: <200611272154.kARLsMC7029800@lava.sentex.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <4557CECD.2000609@samsco.org> <200611132054.kADKsFvK045726@lava.sentex.ca> <4558E3DC.6080800@samsco.org> <200611200454.kAK4sdat083568@lava.sentex.ca> <7.1.0.9.0.20061120160757.14d4a728@sentex.net> <200611220247.kAM2l9JP095066@lava.sentex.ca> <20061122130947.GM20405@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <200611231652.kANGqJsr005016@lava.sentex.ca> <200611272154.kARLsMC7029800@lava.sentex.ca> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Jeremie Le Hen Subject: Re: em forwarding performance (was Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:51:30 -0000 On 11/27/06, Mike Tancsa wrote: > At 02:12 PM 11/25/2006, Nick Pavlica wrote: > >>I might give OpenBSD a quick try as a reference. > > > >Mike, > > Have you done any testing on Solaris 10, or OpenSolaris? I > >understand that it has a very robust IP stack. It would be > > Did a quick default install. Results are not so interesting since one > stream livelocks the box. Basic stats at http://www.tancsa.com/blast.html > > If there are some OpenSolaris wizards out there who want me to tune, > I am happy to retest... > > ---Mike Mike, I'm not an OpenSolaris/Solaris expert, but was curious which build you were testing with. I have noticed various results with my testing depending on which build I was using. I have done most of my testing/learning on Solaris 10 06/06, and have played with Solaris Express B50 with good results. I did see some quirks in SolarisExpress CE or B52 at the time of this writing. Of course I patched all of these boxes before I did my testing which was mostly centered around disk I/O performance on UFS and ZFS, and some experimentation with Zones/Containers. I'm surprised that the console locked up during your tests. My limited experience with Solaris 10+ thus far has been positive in terms of performance and stability. When I have stressed my test systems, they remained responsive and seemed to have better performance than FC6 and Ubuntu6.10 when copying large files across my network. Thanks for digging in with this testing, I hope you keep at it. --Nick