On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 03:17:40 +0200 (CEST), in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you wrote:
> >dmesg: http://www.codeangels.com/misc/fwtest/first/fw_dmesg.txt >pciconf: http://www.codeangels.com/misc/fwtest/first/fw_pciconf.txt >sysctl: http://www.codeangels.com/misc/fwtest/first/fw_sysctl.txt >kernel: http://www.codeangels.com/misc/fwtest/first/fw_kern.txt Are you using amd64 or i386 kernel ? the config implies you are using i386 > >HZ and Pooling values in those config files have been changed by me during >test several times as you will see in results table. >The kernels have pf compiled in but it is not turned on at this time. > >The network topo is: http://www.codeangels.com/misc/fwtest/first/topo.gif >And here are the results: >http://www.codeangels.com/misc/fwtest/first/results.htm > >* Any other ideas on improving performance of this box? I found kern.polling.idle_poll=1 to improve performance in polling. Also, try updating the box to 6.2 first as there are quite a few improvements to the em driver You can also fiddle with assigning less to userspace with kern.polling.user_frac=30 Don remember for sure, but ipfw seemed to be a bit faster that pf. Also with no firewall loaded there seemed to be quite a bit more throughput... However, that kind of defeats the purpose of a firewall. Also, did you try without polling in the kernel ? The way the updated em driver works should negate the need for kernel polling as well. Also if you dont use INET6 or ipsec, I would remove them from the kernel ---Mike -------------------------------------------------------- Mike Tancsa, Sentex communications http://www.sentex.net Providing Internet Access since 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED], (http://www.tancsa.com) _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
