Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 12:24:21 +0100 From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= <uqs@spoerlein.net> To: Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Abysmal re(4) performance under 8.1-STABLE (mid-August) Message-ID: <20101107112421.GH85693@acme.spoerlein.net> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinqcv0M_CR9uHWtjOeHNHt4QGjhS_wNNOjJinu_@mail.gmail.com> References: <20101106093700.GW85693@acme.spoerlein.net> <AANLkTinqcv0M_CR9uHWtjOeHNHt4QGjhS_wNNOjJinu_@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 06.11.2010 at 23:19:33 -0700, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Ulrich Spörlein <uqs@spoerlein.net> wrote: > > Hello Pyun, > > > > On this new server, I cannot get more than ~280kByte/s up/downstream out of > > re(4) without any tweaking. > > > > re0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500 > > options=389b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM,WOL_UCAST,WOL_MCAST,WOL_MAGIC> > > ether 00:21:85:63:74:34 > > inet6 fe80::221:85ff:fe63:7434%re0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 > > inet 46.4.12.147 netmask 0xffffffc0 broadcast 46.4.12.191 > > nd6 options=3<PERFORMNUD,ACCEPT_RTADV> > > media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <half-duplex>) > > status: active > > > > It seems the link was resolved to half-duplex. Does link partner > also agree on the resolved speed/duplex? As this is a dedicated server in a colo hundreds of km away, I have no means to check this easily. Especially I cannot change the setting from auto-neg. Btw, linux will show a negotiated 100/full link via mii-tool. > > # ifconfig re0 > > re0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500 > > options=88<VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWCSUM> > > ether 00:21:85:63:74:34 > > inet6 fe80::221:85ff:fe63:7434%re0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 > > inet 46.4.12.147 netmask 0xffffffc0 broadcast 46.4.12.191 > > nd6 options=3<PERFORMNUD,ACCEPT_RTADV> > > media: Ethernet 100baseTX <full-duplex> (100baseTX <half-duplex>) > > status: active > > > > This time, it seems you used forced media configuration > instead of auto. It still shows duplex mismatch so it's > normal to see poor performance. What makes me wonder > is why you have duplex mismatch? > Did you use forced media configuration on link partner? > What happens when you use different switch? Sadly, none of these options are available to me :/ But even 100/half should give more than enough performance, right? Uli
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101107112421.GH85693>