From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 1 20:56:43 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279BF1065726 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 20:56:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from outO.internet-mail-service.net (outo.internet-mail-service.net [216.240.47.238]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF7FD8FC17 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 20:56:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from idiom.com (mx0.idiom.com [216.240.32.160]) by out.internet-mail-service.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 762102370; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by idiom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BF02D600E; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:56:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <486A9A0E.6060308@elischer.org> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:56:46 -0700 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul References: <4867420D.7090406@gtcomm.net> <200806301944.m5UJifJD081781@lava.sentex.ca> <20080701004346.GA3898@stlux503.dsto.defence.gov.au> <20080701010716.GF3898@stlux503.dsto.defence.gov.au> <486986D9.3000607@monkeybrains.net> <48699960.9070100@gtcomm.net> <20080701033117.GH83626@cdnetworks.co.kr> <4869ACFC.5020205@gtcomm.net> <4869B025.9080006@gtcomm.net> <486A7E45.3030902@gtcomm.net> <486A8F24.5010000@gtcomm.net> In-Reply-To: <486A8F24.5010000@gtcomm.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Net Subject: Re: Freebsd IP Forwarding performance (question, and some info) [7-stable, current, em, smp] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:56:43 -0000 Paul wrote: > 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.. :/ ipfw need sto gain a lock on hte firewall before running, and is quite complex.. I can believe it.. in FreeBSD 4.8 I was able to use ipfw and filter 1Gb between two interfaces (bridged) but I think it has slowed down since then due to the SMP locking. > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"