From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 4 18:01:23 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 641EA106564A for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 18:01:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paul@gtcomm.net) Received: from atlas.gtcomm.net (atlas.gtcomm.net [67.215.15.242]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B74E8FC0A for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 18:01:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paul@gtcomm.net) Received: from c-76-108-179-28.hsd1.fl.comcast.net ([76.108.179.28] helo=[192.168.1.6]) by atlas.gtcomm.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KEpXE-0003H3-JC; Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:57:28 -0400 Message-ID: <486E65E6.3060301@gtcomm.net> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:03:18 -0400 From: Paul User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Flaschberger References: <4867420D.7090406@gtcomm.net> <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> <486A9A0E.6060308@elischer.org> <486B41D5.3060609@gtcomm.net> <486B4F11.6040906@gtcomm.net> <486BC7F5.5070604@gtcomm.net> <20080703160540.W6369@delplex.bde.org> <486C7F93.7010308@gtcomm.net> <20080703195521.O6973@delplex.bde.org> <486D35A0.4000302@gtcomm.net> <486DF1A3.9000409@gtcomm.net> In-Reply-To: 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: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:01:23 -0000 I tried all of this :/ still, 256/512 descriptors seem to work the best. Happy to let you log into the machine and fiddle around if you want :) Paul Ingo Flaschberger wrote: > Dear Paul, > >>>> what could cause this? >>> >>> *) kern.polling.idle_poll enabled? >>> *) kern.polling.user_frac ? >>> *) kern.polling.reg_frac ? >>> *) kern.polling.burst_max ? >>> *) kern.polling.each_burst ? >> >> I tried tons of different values for these and nothing made any >> significant difference. >> Idle polling makes a difference, allows more pps, but still errors. >> Without idle polling it seems PPS is limited to HZ * descriptors, or >> 1000 * 256 or 512 >> but 1000 * 1024 is the same as 512.. 4000 * 256 or 2000 * 512 works >> but starts erroring 600kpps (SMP right now but it happens in UP too) > > I have patched src/sys/kern/kern_poll.c to support higher burst_max > values: > #define MAX_POLL_BURST_MAX 10000 > > When setting kern.polling.burst_max to higher values, the server reach > a point, where cpu-usage goes up without load, so try to keep below > this values. I also have set the network card to 4096 rx-"ram", to > have more room for late polls. > > Kind regards, > Ingo Flaschberger > >