From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 20 14:11:49 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9664616A4CE for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:11:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from xciv.org (82-44-19-101.cable.ubr03.newm.blueyonder.co.uk [82.44.19.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A7D43D1F for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:11:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from paul@xciv.org) Received: from tuscan.xciv.org (localhost.xciv.org [127.0.0.1]) by xciv.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3KE80Qm000652; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:08:00 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from paul@tuscan.xciv.org) Received: (from paul@localhost) by tuscan.xciv.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id j3KE7xNb000651; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:07:59 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from paul) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:07:59 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <200504201407.j3KE7xNb000651@tuscan.xciv.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: knews 1.0b.1 Organization: iso.org.dod.internet References: <68248.1113779741@xciv.org> In-Reply-To: From: paul@xciv.org (Paul Civati) X-Original-Newsgroups: xciv.lists.freebsd.stable To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: paul@xciv.org Subject: Re: Tuning for router performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:11:49 -0000 In article , davids@webmaster.com ("David Schwartz") writes: >> options HZ=1000 #for polling > That's too low. 2000 is the minimum you should consider. Having fixed my traffic generator, I'm now hitting ~220Kpps as limit before errors. > kern.random.sys.harvest.ethernet=0 > kern.random.sys.hervest.interrupt=0 Doesn't seem to make any real difference in my test. > kern.ipc.nmbclusters="262144" > vm.kmem_size="536870912" > vm.kmem_size_max="536870912" These don't really make any difference, I'm guessing would only help larger packet sizes? -Paul-