From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 30 18:11:19 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 B2E4416A412 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:11:19 +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 38F7C43CB2 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:11:02 +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 kAUI6AEW094185; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:06:10 -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 kAUI68vd047209 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:06:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <200611301806.kAUI68vd047209@lava.sentex.ca> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:04:08 -0500 To: Ivan Voras , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org 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> <200611301417.kAUEHqAm046076@lava.sentex.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: 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 18:11:19 -0000 At 12:57 PM 11/30/2006, Ivan Voras wrote: >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... I was told offlist "there is additional per-packet locking overhead not seen in RELENG_4 where all processing is covered by the same spl."... ---Mike