Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 06:20:55 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> To: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Cc: FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 35-40% performance drop releng9 vs releng10 openvpn Message-ID: <20150316132055.GQ32288@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <5506250A.2000506@sentex.net> References: <5506250A.2000506@sentex.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Tancsa wrote this message on Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 20:34 -0400: > As part of moving from a RELENG8 based image to a RELENG9 or 10, I was > doing some simple performance testing and found RELENG_9 to be quite a > bit faster when generating traffic through a pcengines APU (dual core, > AMD64, 2G of RAM). Both are using generic kernels > > blasting across an aes-128cbc tunnel, on releng9 I get > > > # dd if=/dev/zero | nc 10.3.24.25 500 > > 326002688 bytes transferred in 37.188139 secs (8766308 bytes/sec) > > > vs > > # dd if=/dev/zero | nc 10.3.24.25 500 > 146982400 bytes transferred in 27.750440 secs (5296579 bytes/sec) > on releng10. > > Both have identical pf rules, but disabling pf does not make much of a > difference in speed. > > I havent started checking any of the default tunables. The box will be > functioning as a VPN router and I was hoping to get at least 50Mb/s out > of it, and I can do that on RELENG9, but not 10. > Any ideas what to do with RELENG10 to get comparable performance out of it ? Since you have at test framework ready, you could generate some flame graphs[1] using dtrace to help see where things might be having an impact... These are very easy to generate, and posting them would be useful... [1] http://www.brendangregg.com/FlameGraphs/cpuflamegraphs.html -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150316132055.GQ32288>