Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:57:48 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em forwarding performance (was Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch Message-ID: <ekn62o$d3p$1@sea.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <200611301417.kAUEHqAm046076@lava.sentex.ca> References: <4557CECD.2000609@samsco.org> <200611132054.kADKsFvK045726@lava.sentex.ca> <4558E3DC.6080800@samsco.org> <200611200454.kAK4sdat083568@lava.sentex.ca> <7.1.0.9.0.20061120160757.14d4a728@sentex.net> <200611220247.kAM2l9JP095066@lava.sentex.ca> <20061122130947.GM20405@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <200611231652.kANGqJsr005016@lava.sentex.ca> <dc9ba0440611251112h52ec543av6f54166fea0a05ff@mail.gmail.com> <200611272154.kARLsMC7029800@lava.sentex.ca> <dc9ba0440611292151qad92eaal129f11142d50b1db@mail.gmail.com> <dc9ba0440611292151qad92eaal129f11142d50b1db@mail.gmail.com > <200611301417.kAUEHqAm046076@lava.sentex.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Tancsa wrote: > Yeah I inadvertently slighted the NetBSD folks by leaving them out. So > I guess I better give them a try as well. > > The part that really surprises me is the drop in performance as firewall > rules are added to RELENG_6 and above. Both LINUX and RELENG_4 seem to > scale well with the number of rules added but RELENG_6 takes a big drop. Wasn't there some important setting in ipfw you can tweak if you need lots of ipfw rules? Size of some hash table? Quick Googling found this: http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ip_dummynet/ and net.inet.ip.fw.dyn_buckets: 256. AFAIK the hash size needed to be tweaked manually in the code, and net.inet.ip.fw.dyn_buckets: 256 is listed as read-only so this might be it. Maybe mailing Luigi will help finding out...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ekn62o$d3p$1>