I have setup a machine with the following configurations a few months ago: (1) Xeon 1.8Ghz (2) 1G DDR2 mem (3) Two Intel 82543GC Gigabit card.
The machine works under bridge mode. It can transfer at 300kpps and 1.2Gbit. BTW, the machine has 1 PCI-X 133 bus. But 82543GC can only work at 64bit * 66Mhz. So the throughput result is at the maximum for 64bit * 66M = 4G, with 60%, at 2.4G = 1.2G * 2. If the throughput is above 1.2Gbit/s, the machine begins to drop packets. If the throughput is less than 1.2Gbit/s, it works well. For big size packets, the bottleneck is at PCI bus, not CPU and memory. If you select 82546 or other cards which can work at 64bit * 133Mhz, I think the result will be better. If anyone have tried that, please let me know. Shouyan ------------------------------------------------------------ I'm not the best, but I try to do better than last time. ------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Evans Sent: 2005年12月26日 11:04 To: Andre Oppermann Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Matt Staroscik; Julian Elischer Subject: Re: Good gigabit NIC for 4.11? On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Julian Elischer wrote: >> >> "."@babolo.ru wrote: >> >>>> I've been Googling up a storm but I am having trouble finding >>>> recommendations for a good gigabit ethernet card to use with 4.11. The >>>> Intel part numbers I found in the em readme are a few years old now, and >>>> I can't quite determine how happy people are with other chipsets despite >>>> my searches. >>>> >>>> I'm looking for a basic PCI 1-port card with jumbo frame support if >>>> possible--I can live without it. Either way, stability is much more >>>> important than performance. >>>> >>>> >>> em for PCI32x33MHz works good up to 250Mbit/s, not more >>> em for PCI64x66MHz works up to about 500Mbit/s without polling > > Please specify the packet size (distribution) you've got these numbers > from. sk and bge for PCI 33MHz under my version of an old version of FreeBSD and significantly modified sk driver: - nfs with default packet size gives 15-30MB/s on a file system where local r/w gives 51-53MB/s. Strangely, tcp is best for writing (30MB/s vs 19 vor udp) and worst for reading (15MB/s vs 23). - sk to bge packet size 5 using ttcp -u: 1.1MB/s 240kpps (2% lost). Either ttcp or sk must be modified to avoid problems with ENOBUFS. - sk to bge packet size 1500 using ttcp -u: 78MB/s 53.4kpps (0% lost). - sk to bge packet size 8192 using ttcp -u: [panic]. Apparently I got bad bits from -current or mismerged them. - bge to sk packet size 5 using ttcp -u: 1.0MB/s 208kpps (0% lost). Different problems with ENOBUFS -- unmodified ttcp spins so test always takes 100% CPU. - bge to sk packet size 1500 using ttcp -u: [bge hangs] > You have to be careful here. Throughput and packets per second are not > directly related. Throughput is generally limited by good/bad hardware > and DMA speed. My measurements show that with decent hardware (em(4) and > bge(4) on PCI-X/133MHz) you can easily run at full wirespeed of 1 gigabit > per second with 1500 bytes per packet as the CPU only has to handle about > 81,000 packets per second. All processing like forwarding, firewalling and PCI/33MHz apparently can't do "only" 81000 non-small packets/sec. > routing table lookups are done once per packet no matter how large it is. > So at wirespeed with 64 bytes packets you've got to do this 1.488 million > times per second. This is a bit harder and entirely CPU bound. With some > mods and fastforward we've got em(4) to do 714,000 packets per second on > my Opteron 852 with PCI-X/133. Hacking em(4) to m_free() the packets just > before they would hit the stack I see that the hardware is capable of > receiving full wirespeed at 64 byte packets. I have timestamps which show that my sk (a Yukon-mumble, whatever is on an A7N8X-E) can't do more than the measured 240kpps. Once the ring buffer is filled up, it takes about 4 usec per packet (typically 1767 usec for 480 packets) to send the packets. I guess it spends the entire 4 usec talking to the PCI bus and perhaps takes several cycles setting up transactions. Bruce _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
