From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 30 17:58:57 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 53A8F16A407 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:58:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gofp-freebsd-performance@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0C343CB9 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:58:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gofp-freebsd-performance@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GpqAs-0000iD-78 for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:58:18 +0100 Received: from 83-131-160-100.adsl.net.t-com.hr ([83.131.160.100]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:58:18 +0100 Received: from ivoras by 83-131-160-100.adsl.net.t-com.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:58:18 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:57:48 +0100 Lines: 17 Message-ID: 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> <200611301417.kAUEHqAm046076@lava.sentex.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 83-131-160-100.adsl.net.t-com.hr User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) In-Reply-To: <200611301417.kAUEHqAm046076@lava.sentex.ca> Sender: news 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 17:58:57 -0000 Mike Tancsa wrote: > 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. Wasn't there some important setting in ipfw you can tweak if you need lots of ipfw rules? Size of some hash table? Quick Googling found this: http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ip_dummynet/ and net.inet.ip.fw.dyn_buckets: 256. AFAIK the hash size needed to be tweaked manually in the code, and net.inet.ip.fw.dyn_buckets: 256 is listed as read-only so this might be it. Maybe mailing Luigi will help finding out...