From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 30 14:17:54 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 6150B16A403 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:17:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost2.sentex.ca (smarthost2.sentex.ca [205.211.164.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1AD843CA3 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:17:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by smarthost2.sentex.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kAUEHrYW047209; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:17:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from mdt-xp.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.13.6/8.13.3) with ESMTP id kAUEHqAm046076 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:17:52 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <200611301417.kAUEHqAm046076@lava.sentex.ca> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:15:52 -0500 To: "Nick Pavlica" From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 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 14:17:54 -0000 At 12:51 AM 11/30/2006, Nick Pavlica wrote: >>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, > I'm not an OpenSolaris/Solaris expert, but was curious which build >you were testing with. Hi, I grabbed the latest DVD bits that were available at the time. # uname -a SunOS interlope 5.11 snv_52 i86pc i386 i86pc >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. Didnt do any patches. The only thing I did was kill off X and disable and enable ipfilter. Its quite possible there was other cruft running that I didnt know about, but like I said, this was my first exposure to OpenSolaris so I have no idea if there are things I should have set. > 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. It does recover afterwards, but pretty well all other processes stop as the CPU I guess is pegged dealing with all the interrupts. Thinking further about my tests, it doesnt really do that great of a job of simulating normal real world conditions. In the real world, the packet sizes will vary and the speeds will be all over the place. I am wondering if some of these modern nics have that in mind with their design. But then again, this is sort of the scenario when a firewal gets blasted by a high PPS attack :( >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. But thats pretty different then my test setup. All the OSes I tested can do that no problem :) >Thanks for digging in with this testing, I hope you keep at it. Yeah I inadvertently slighted the NetBSD folks by leaving them out. So I guess I better give them a try as well. The part that really surprises me is the drop in performance as firewall rules are added to RELENG_6 and above. Both LINUX and RELENG_4 seem to scale well with the number of rules added but RELENG_6 takes a big drop. ---Mike