* nixlists <nixmli...@gmail.com> [2010-01-14 01:09]:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Henning Brauer <lists-open...@bsws.de> wrote:
> > I really like the 275 -> 420MBit/s change for 4.6 -> current with pf.
> >
>
> Update: both machines run -current again this time. I think my initial
> tcpbench results were poor because of running cbq queuing on 4.6. The
> server has em NIC , the client has msk. Jumbo frames are set to 9000
> on both, but don't make much difference. This is with a $20 D-link
> switch.
>
> tcpbench results:
>
> pf disabled on both machines: 883 Mb/s
>
> pf enabled on tcpbench server only - simple ruleset like the documentation
> example: 619 Mb/s
>
> pf enabled on both machines - the tcpbench client box has the standard
> -current default install pf.conf: 585 Mb/s
>
> pf enabled on just the tcpbench server: with cbq queuing enabled on
> the internal interface as follows (for tcpbench only, not for real
> network use) - no other queues defined on $int_if:
>
> altq on $int_if cbq bandwidth 1Gb queue { std_in, ssh_im_in, dns_in }
> queue std_in bandwidth 999.9Mb cbq(default,borrow)
>
> 401 Mb/s
>
> Why is that? cbq code overhead? The machine doesn't have enough CPU?
> Or am I missing something? Admittedly it's an old P4.
test results on old P4 are unfortunately pretty much pointless.
> After a while, during benching, even if pf is disabled on both
> machines the throughput drops to 587 Mbit/s. The only way to bring it
> back up to 883 Mb/s is to reboot the tcpbench client. Anyone know why?
that seems.... weird. CPU throttling down becuase it overheated,
perhaps? could be some ressource issue in OpenBSD as well, but i've
never seen such behaviour
--
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting
