Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:10:12 -0400 From: Paul <paul@gtcomm.net> To: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Freebsd IP Forwarding performance (question, and some info) [7-stable, current, em, smp] Message-ID: <486A8F24.5010000@gtcomm.net> In-Reply-To: <486A7E45.3030902@gtcomm.net> References: <4867420D.7090406@gtcomm.net> <200806301944.m5UJifJD081781@lava.sentex.ca> <20080701004346.GA3898@stlux503.dsto.defence.gov.au> <alpine.LFD.1.10.0807010257570.19444@filebunker.xip.at> <20080701010716.GF3898@stlux503.dsto.defence.gov.au> <alpine.LFD.1.10.0807010308320.19444@filebunker.xip.at> <486986D9.3000607@monkeybrains.net> <48699960.9070100@gtcomm.net> <ea7b9c170806302005n2a66f592h2127f87a0ba2c6d2@mail.gmail.com> <20080701033117.GH83626@cdnetworks.co.kr> <ea7b9c170806302050p2a3a5480t29923a4ac2d7c852@mail.gmail.com> <4869ACFC.5020205@gtcomm.net> <4869B025.9080006@gtcomm.net> <486A7E45.3030902@gtcomm.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
ULE without PREEMPTION is now yeilding better results.
input (em0) output
packets errs bytes packets errs bytes colls
571595 40639 34564108 1 0 226 0
577892 48865 34941908 1 0 178 0
545240 84744 32966404 1 0 178 0
587661 44691 35534512 1 0 178 0
587839 38073 35544904 1 0 178 0
587787 43556 35540360 1 0 178 0
540786 39492 32712746 1 0 178 0
572071 55797 34595650 1 0 178 0
*OUCH, IPFW HURTS..
loading ipfw, and adding one ipfw rule allow ip from any to any drops
100Kpps off :/ what's up with THAT?
unloaded ipfw module and back 100kpps more again, that's not right with
ONE rule.. :/
em0 taskq is still jumping cpus.. is there any way to lock it to one cpu
or is this just a function of ULE
running a tar czpvf all.tgz * and seeing if pps changes..
negligible.. guess scheduler is doing it's job at least..
Hmm. even when it's getting 50-60k errors per second on the interface I
can still SCP a file through that interface although it's not fast..
3-4MB/s..
You know, I wouldn't care if it added 5ms latency to the packets when it
was doing 1mpps as long as it didn't drop any.. Why can't it do that?
Queue them up and do them in bigggg chunks so none are dropped........hmm?
32 bit system is compiling now.. won't do > 400kpps with GENERIC
kernel, as with 64 bit did 450k with GENERIC, although that could be
the difference between opteron 270 and opteron 2212..
Paul
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?486A8F24.5010000>