From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Mar 30 23:55:22 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from rheingold.navi.net (pdx-pm-p012.navi.net [209.188.52.62]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A44714F91 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:55:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wcooley@nakedape.navi.net) Received: from localhost (wcooley@localhost) by rheingold.navi.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id XAA28602; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:55:03 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:55:03 -0800 (PST) From: "W. Reilly Cooley" X-Sender: wcooley@rheingold To: Kevin Day Cc: Benoit Rossier , freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPFW performance impact? In-Reply-To: <199903310725.BAA00629@home.dragondata.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Kevin Day wrote: > Right now, i've got close to 2MB out, and 1MB in, with two fxp0 cards, > and a pretty heavy ruleset (40 rules, that most packets have to pass > through all of them). > > last pid: 26211; load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 > 13 processes: 1 running, 12 sleeping > CPU states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 6.6% interrupt, 93.4% idle > > > This is on a P/200. How much traffic do you have going through at the time you posted this? This data would be more meaningful if, say, you we're doing an FTP or dump to a machine just on the other side, so you had lots of traffic. If it's idle, then it doesn't really matter how many rules or how much you've got--it'd be as idle on a 386-16. Wil -- W. Reilly Cooley wcooley@nakedape.navi.net Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.navi.net Internet Meta-Resources: http://nakedape.navi.net/meta-res/ "All the Net you need to be a geek" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message