Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:18:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Kelly Yancey <kbyanc@posi.net> To: Don Bowman <don@sandvine.com> Cc: 'James' <haesu@towardex.com> Subject: RE: device polling takes more CPU hits?? Message-ID: <20040726131235.N74984@gateway.posi.net> In-Reply-To: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337051D9435@mail.sandvine.com> References: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337051D9435@mail.sandvine.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Don Bowman wrote:
> kern.polling.burst: 1000
> kern.polling.each_burst: 80
> kern.polling.burst_max: 1000
> kern.polling.idle_poll: 1
> kern.polling.poll_in_trap: 0
> kern.polling.user_frac: 5
> kern.polling.reg_frac: 120
> kern.polling.short_ticks: 29
> kern.polling.lost_polls: 55004
> kern.polling.pending_polls: 0
> kern.polling.residual_burst: 0
> kern.polling.handlers: 4
> kern.polling.enable: 1
> kern.polling.phase: 0
> kern.polling.suspect: 50690
> kern.polling.stalled: 25
Out of curiousity, what sort of testing did you do to arrive at these
settings? I did some testing a while back with a SmartBits box pumping
packets through a FreeBSD 2.8Ghz box configured to route between two em
gigabit interfaces; I found that changing the burst_max and each_burst
parameters had almost no effect on throughput (maximum 1% difference).
That was completely contrary to expectations and would love to hear how I
could improve my test setup to see how changing those values are supposed
to affect performance.
Thanks,
Kelly
--
Kelly Yancey - kbyanc@{posi.net,FreeBSD.org} - kelly@nttmcl.com
"The information of the people at large can alone make them the safe as they
are the sole depositary of our political and religious freedom."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1810. ME 12:417
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040726131235.N74984>