On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 03:16:57AM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > How about fixing it for real as described in the commit message?
>
> The real fix, for me, is the one-line change to M_LEADINGSPACE.
> The one described in the commit message was just Bosko's point of
> view, with which I and many o
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 02:34:36AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> [..]
> > The change below has been committed to STABLE 7 weeks ago, but did
> > not go into CURRENT because there was some disagreement on the
...
> Incidently, this is a poster-child example of why fixes are not to
Peter Wemm wrote:
>
> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> [..]
> > The change below has been committed to STABLE 7 weeks ago, but did
> > not go into CURRENT because there was some disagreement on the
> > semantics of M_LEADINGSPACE. However I would strongly vote for
> > committing this change to CURRENT as wel
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
[..]
> The change below has been committed to STABLE 7 weeks ago, but did
> not go into CURRENT because there was some disagreement on the
> semantics of M_LEADINGSPACE. However I would strongly vote for
> committing this change to CURRENT as well, given the huge performance
> i
In case you are interested, I found why CURRENT performed so badly.
It turns out that CURRENT still does not have the fix to M_LEADINGSPACE
that permits writing into non-shared mbufs. This caused the header
of forwarded packets to be pulled up in a separate buffer, and
triggered a known (to me a
If memory serves me right, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I've noticed that -current has much lower TCP performance. I haven't
> had time to investigate it but I presume there is some overhead
> somewhere that is killing it.
Here's a data point but I'm not sure how useful it is. At the sta
I've noticed that -current has much lower TCP performance. I haven't
had time to investigate it but I presume there is some overhead
somewhere that is killing it.
-Matt
:Hi,
:I am testing the forwarding performance of CURRENT vs. STABLE
:(both
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:57:46PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > STABLE can forward approx 125Kpps, whereas CURRENT tops at approx 80Kpps.
>
> Kernel configs, please.
Attached. PICO5 is for CURRENT, PICO4 is for STABLE.
In my testbed i am using t
Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> STABLE can forward approx 125Kpps, whereas CURRENT tops at approx 80Kpps.
Kernel configs, please.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the messag
Hi,
I am testing the forwarding performance of CURRENT vs. STABLE
(both more or less up to date, unmodified, with the latest performance
patches to the "dc" driver, which I am using) and I am having some
surprises.
STABLE can forward approx 125Kpps, whereas CURRENT tops at approx 80Kpps.
This i
10 matches
Mail list logo
