Hello Fabien,
Hello :)
1- I have noticed you are not using GENERIC config file, can you
provide us more information on how your KERNCONF differs from
GENERIC ?
I am pretty sure you have removed all the debug OPTIONs from the
kernel, isn't it ?
It's a GENERIC kernel conf with polling an
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 01:32:25AM +0200, Christopher Arnold wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
> >There are no NICs known that can do packet forwarding offload.
> >And neither is there support in FreeBSD for that. You're probably
> >confusing this with checksum offloadin
Le 6 sept. 07 à 15:12, Fabien THOMAS a écrit :
Hi,
After many years of good services we will stop using FreeBSD 4.x :)
During my performance regression tests under FreeBSD 6.2 i've found
that polling has lower performance than interrupt.
To solve that issue i've rewritten the core of
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:56:22PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > This is not the case. Flood ping doesn't reach the limit in any
> > way. Have a look at the ping man page and flood ping description.
>
> Ah yes, I was forgetting about the strict synchrony.
>
> > Stock FreeBSD 6.2 or 7.0 can easil
Haven't tested RELENG_4 performance in a controlled environment and
thus can't answer the question directly. However using fastforward
on 6 and 7 is key to good performance. Without it you're stuck at
some 150-200kpps, perhaps 300kpps. With it you get to 500-800kpps.
To show that pps is mai
Le 8 sept. 07 à 01:05, Andre Oppermann a écrit :
Mike Tancsa wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:12:06 +0200, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you
wrote:
After many years of good services we will stop using FreeBSD 4.x :)
During my performance regression tests under FreeBSD 6.2 i've
found that polling
Hi,
This is really interesting work! Reading the pdf file, it
seems forwarding performance on 6 and 7 is still much lower than
RELENG_4 ? is that correct ?
---Mike
Thanks,
Yes it is still slower but as you can see in the graph (programming
cost) just adding a mutex
drop th
