Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 14:11:48 -0500 From: "Jimbo Bahooli" <griffin@blackprojects.org> To: "Mike Smith" <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Balancing Outgoing traffic over 2 nics, and nic limitations. Message-ID: <199910161411480990.0E0C8D04@207.109.8.249> In-Reply-To: <199910161826.LAA06742@dingo.cdrom.com> References: <199910161826.LAA06742@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/16/99 at 11:26 AM Mike Smith wrote: >> >> Of course its a switched network with full duplex operation. But now >> that the general answer is that it is not a limitation of the nic card >> I am going to look elsewhere. I was not to sure if it was actually a >> limit myself, its just that I observed it on two different machines. > >You should be looking at some basic system statistics to see where your >limiting factor actually is; try watching 'systat -vmstat 1' while >you're hitting your limit. > >> They however were not huge powerhouses, one was a p2-450, and one was a >> dual p2 333. Both running real new versions of 3.3-stable. > >Note also that Apache isn't the fastest of animals; you might want to >use a lighter-weight server like thttpd if all you're doing is serving >static content. > We are actually using Zeus web server. Which is based on the select()/poll() model much like thttpd. Its extremely fast. It is also fully featured like apache, but 5 times faster. And boy, you are right about apache not being the fastest of animals. :) And to everyone following, this is web traffic, not huge tcp benchmark packets. Its not so bad now, we can push 35 megabit from one machine, where before apache would do about 10, but we could get it to 25 by putting a huge load on the machine. But I will look at systat now. Thanks To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199910161411480990.0E0C8D04>