Re: Patch #3 (TCP / Linux / Performance)

2001-12-02 Thread Mike Silbersack
This part of the thread sounds really familiar. I recall someone coming up with a patch for this a few weeks ago, possibly committing it to -current. I'm too tired and it's too late, though; I'll look for it tomorrow if Matt doesn't find the thread in the archives first. Mike "Silby" Silbersac

Re: TCP graph

2001-12-02 Thread Matthew Dillon
:Hello, : :On the subject of tcp performance graphs, I have taken a few tcpdumps of = :some pages, to understand the entire process in more minute detail, and = :to co-relate the theory with the graphs in practice. I have plotted a = :graph of cumulative data received at the client side vs. time r

Re: Patch #3 (TCP / Linux / Performance)

2001-12-02 Thread Matthew Dillon
:curious, as the loopback's MTU is normally 16384. :Also, any idea on where does the 4096 limit (1460*2+1176) come from ? : : cheers : luigi It comes from the size of an mbuf, which is 2K. If you are trying to send 4100 bytes of data what winds up happening is this:

TCP graph

2001-12-02 Thread Anjali Kulkarni
Hello,   On the subject of tcp performance graphs, I have taken a few tcpdumps of some pages, to understand the entire process in more minute detail, and to co-relate the theory with the graphs in practice. I have plotted a graph of cumulative data received at the client side vs. time requir

Re: Patch #3 (TCP / Linux / Performance)

2001-12-02 Thread Luigi Rizzo
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 12:10:53AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: ... > There are still a couple of unresolved issues. I noticed that when > connecting locally TCP is non-optimal... when sending a 4100 byte > data block it sends two 1460 byte packets (maxseg), then one > 1176 byte p

Re: Make RELEASE broken?

2001-12-02 Thread Makoto Matsushita
Repeat again. kerberus> it builds a tree, cvs's the src goes into its build stage, and again, kerberus> fails with a fresh cvsup from today, which did a complete make world kerberus> kernel from the standard /usr/src, now can some one tell me what im kerberus> missing or doing wrong ?? and yes i

Re: device object, driver object, cdevsw

2001-12-02 Thread Warner Losh
In message <003e01c17b9c$0e571ff0$037d6041@gandalf> "Dragon Fire" writes: : I am using stable not devfs for development. : : In the Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System. Chapter 6 : states : : Device Drivers : : A device is divided into three main sections : 1. Autoconfigur

Re: device object, driver object, cdevsw

2001-12-02 Thread Dragon Fire
I am using stable not devfs for development. In the Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System. Chapter 6 states Device Drivers A device is divided into three main sections 1. Autoconfiguration and initialization routines 2. Routines for servicing I/O requests (the top half) 3. I

Re: Patch #3 (TCP / Linux / Performance)

2001-12-02 Thread Matthew Dillon
:nice, 950 Mbs which should be the theoretical maximum. what kind of CPUs :do you have in there, and do you know how hard they were working? : These are 1.1 GHz duel Pentium III's. One of the cpu's is maxed out at that transfer rate (this is -stable and the program is in the system

Re: device object, driver object, cdevsw

2001-12-02 Thread Warner Losh
In message <000601c17b6b$7a89c190$037d6041@gandalf> "Dragon Fire" writes: : I'm writing a PCI character device driver and need some clairification. : : As I see the FreeBSD driver structure there are really two components to a : device driver, there is the KLD component which contains the device

Re: Patch #3 (TCP / Linux / Performance)

2001-12-02 Thread Lamont Granquist
On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, Matthew Dillon wrote: > This is connecting to inetd running a dd if=/dev/zero bs=32k on a > machine with the rfc sysctl's turned on and 262144 byte send and > receive buffers, without jumbo frames (my gigE switch doesn't support > them :-( ). nice, 950 Mbs wh

Re: Via 686b data corruption.

2001-12-02 Thread Pete Carah
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, Pete Carah wrote: > > > I'm seeing data corruption on the Promise channel of a A7V133, > > WITH the "southbridge fix" applied and NO sound card of any kind in > > the system (the built-in is disabled in the bios; current wouldn't boot > > at all with it enabled, when I bough

attach ata dev in 4-stable

2001-12-02 Thread Bjoern Fischer
Hello, AFAIK it is possible to attach/detach an ata channel with atacontrol on -CURRENT. I am looking for a way to do this on -STABLE, too. Particularly I want to hot swap an ATA disk w/ an appropriate IDE drive bay. No RAID is involved at the moment. Currently the whole machine is to be shut do

Re: Patch #3 (TCP / Linux / Performance)

2001-12-02 Thread Matthew Dillon
:On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, Matthew Dillon wrote: :> Throughput 47.2446 MB/sec (NB=59.0558 MB/sec 472.446 MBit/sec) 20 procs :> :> It seems to max-out at around 75,000 packets per second (input + output). :> :> I doubt these results could be duplicated on anything but a DELL2550. :> It ded

Via 686b data corruption.

2001-12-02 Thread Pete Carah
I'm seeing data corruption on the Promise channel of a A7V133, WITH the "southbridge fix" applied and NO sound card of any kind in the system (the built-in is disabled in the bios; current wouldn't boot at all with it enabled, when I bought the mb). All the cards are video (a TNT2 card of some k

Re: Patch #3 (TCP / Linux / Performance)

2001-12-02 Thread Andrew R. Reiter
On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, Lamont Granquist wrote: : :What is the remaining bottleneck in these tests? CPU? Interrupts? What :would you need to do to get that closer to the theoretical limit :(something around 920 Mbs for GigE IIRC)? Well, for one thing, I'd imagine that per-byte and per-copy overhea

Re: Make RELEASE broken?

2001-12-02 Thread kerberus
Okay ive setup a /usr/cvs, exported CVSROOT /usr/cvs, cd'd into /usr/cvs, cvs init, cd'd to /usr/src, cvs import src devel beta, all went fine and created a /usr/cvs/src . cd'd to /usr/src setenv CVSROOT /usr/cvs setenv CHROOTDIR /usr/release make release churn churn churn it builds a tree,

Re: Patch #3 (TCP / Linux / Performance)

2001-12-02 Thread Lamont Granquist
On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Throughput 47.2446 MB/sec (NB=59.0558 MB/sec 472.446 MBit/sec) 20 procs > > It seems to max-out at around 75,000 packets per second (input + output). > > I doubt these results could be duplicated on anything but a DELL2550. > It dedicates

device object, driver object, cdevsw

2001-12-02 Thread Dragon Fire
I'm writing a PCI character device driver and need some clairification. As I see the FreeBSD driver structure there are really two components to a device driver, there is the KLD component which contains the device methods for probe, attach, detach, etc and handles the dynamic componet of the dri

Re: Patch #3 (TCP / Linux / Performance)

2001-12-02 Thread Andrew R. Reiter
: :Ahh, but there are patches floating around that do support zero-copy. :Just ask Ken Merry and Drew Gallatin. I don't think they've been integrated :due to lack of testing time, but they've existed for 2 or so years now. : http://people.freebsd.org/~ken/zero_copy/ -- Andrew R. Reiter [EMAIL

Re: Patch #3 (TCP / Linux / Performance)

2001-12-02 Thread Bosko Milekic
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 11:18:42AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: [...] > :Does the FreeBSD tcp stack do zero copy (page flip the data to > :userspace)? In the localhost case, it seems like there are two copies > :to/from userspace there. > : > :-- > :Richard Sharpe, [EMAIL PROTECTED], LPIC-1 >

Re: Patch #3 (TCP / Linux / Performance)

2001-12-02 Thread Matthew Dillon
: :OK Matt, that last patch did the trick. : :I am now getting 68 and 69Mb/s between my Linux system and the FreeBSD :system. Excellent! :I have also tried the loopback interface, and I am getting 371Mb/s for 1 process, :dropping to about 320Mb/s for 5. Excellent! :This seems like i

uruguay presente

2001-12-02 Thread marualm
hola estoy buscando algo para gla gx28 gracias por informacion o donde puedo dirigirme att mauro To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Patch #3 (TCP / Linux / Performance)

2001-12-02 Thread Justin T. Gibbs
>>Does the FreeBSD tcp stack do zero copy (page flip the data to >>userspace)? In the localhost case, it seems like there are two copies >>to/from userspace there. > > It has the ability to do it via sendfile() and a few other mechanisms, but >not as a normal part of typical read()/write(). A

Re: Patch #3 (TCP / Linux / Performance)

2001-12-02 Thread David Greenman
>Does the FreeBSD tcp stack do zero copy (page flip the data to >userspace)? In the localhost case, it seems like there are two copies >to/from userspace there. It has the ability to do it via sendfile() and a few other mechanisms, but not as a normal part of typical read()/write(). -DG Da

Re: Make RELEASE broken?

2001-12-02 Thread kerberus
Its a 4.4-Stable box, actually it does the same thing on three different 4.4-Stable boxes. make world works, so does installworld, make release barfs. It exists in my standard /usr/src, but not in the checked out chrooted build tree. On Sun, 2001-12-02 at 00:50, Makoto Matsushita wrote: > > You

Samba performance compared between FreeBSD and Linux ...

2001-12-02 Thread Richard Sharpe
Hi, It seems like all of the issues uncovered have been fixed, so it seems like you cannot use performance as a way to choose between FreeBSD and Linux any longer. I will re-issue my report, but I do not have any more time to spend on this now for several days. I will most likely re-run the

Re: Patch #3 (TCP / Linux / Performance)

2001-12-02 Thread Richard Sharpe
OK Matt, that last patch did the trick. I am now getting 68 and 69Mb/s between my Linux system and the FreeBSD system. I have also tried the loopback interface, and I am getting 371Mb/s for 1 process, dropping to about 320Mb/s for 5. This seems like it is close to the limit for the machine I

[PATCH]: missing references in pthread.3

2001-12-02 Thread Maxim Konovalov
Hello, Could someone review and commit the following patch: Index: pthread.3 === RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/share/man/man3/pthread.3,v retrieving revision 1.20 diff -u -r1.20 pthread.3 --- pthread.3 1 Oct 2001 16:09:20 -

Re: UDMA33 and SiS5591 on FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE

2001-12-02 Thread Søren Schmidt
It seems Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, Greg Lehey wrote: > > > Note that there are other chips out there which return the same PCI > > information but which appear to be capable of ATA 100. I recently > > gave a patch to Richard Sharpe (copied) which he says was able to get > > hi

Re: UDMA33 and SiS5591 on FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE

2001-12-02 Thread Zwane Mwaikambo
On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, Greg Lehey wrote: > Note that there are other chips out there which return the same PCI > information but which appear to be capable of ATA 100. I recently > gave a patch to Richard Sharpe (copied) which he says was able to get > his "SiS 5591" to run at ATA 100. I'm still w

Re: Patch #2 (was Re: Found the problem, w/patch (was Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?))

2001-12-02 Thread Matthew Dillon
:> slightly better results with Patch #3 and delayed acks turned on. :> :> -Matt :i did not apply any patches - yet -, net.inet.tcp.newreno is 1, on both hosts. :they are connected at 100mb, so the strange numbers are when the number of :clients is

Re: UDMA33 and SiS5591 on FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE

2001-12-02 Thread Søren Schmidt
It seems Richard Sharpe wrote: > Attached is the patch I am using, which is based on what Greg gave me. > It tries UDMA5 first, and steps down ... The following patch is bogus, it doesn't set the chip to the prober mode (always sets it to UDMA2), it just set the disk, this wont work guys... I

Re: Patch #2 (was Re: Found the problem, w/patch (was Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?))

2001-12-02 Thread Danny Braniss
> That's reasonable with patch #2 and delayed acks turned off (assuming > this is a 100BaseTX network you are testing on). You should get > slightly better results with Patch #3 and delayed acks turned on. > > -Matt i did not apply any p

Re: Patch #2 (was Re: Found the problem, w/patch (was Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?))

2001-12-02 Thread Matthew Dillon
That's reasonable with patch #2 and delayed acks turned off (assuming this is a 100BaseTX network you are testing on). You should get slightly better results with Patch #3 and delayed acks turned on. -Matt :hum, do i get a speed ticke

Patch #3 (TCP / Linux / Performance)

2001-12-02 Thread Matthew Dillon
I've fixed a couple of additional problems. * tbench() assumes that accept() propogates the NODELAY tcp option. It doesn't in FreeBSD. Er, it didn't in FreeBSD... my patch fixes this. * If the transwmitter sees a 0 window it stalls waiting for an ack. However, if

Re: Patch #2 (was Re: Found the problem, w/patch (was Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?))

2001-12-02 Thread Danny Braniss
hum, do i get a speed ticket? i did some tests before applying your patches: lizard> ./tbench 1 dev .1 clients started ..+* Throughput 6.10567 MB/sec (NB=7.63209 MB/sec 61.0567 MBit/sec) lizard> ./tbench 2 dev ..2 clients started ++** Throughput 7.71796 MB