Are the NFS mounts UDP or TCP on Linux and FreeBSD? I believe FreeBSD
still defaults to UDP which can act differently especially for NFS.
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 05:30:35PM -0700, David Kwan wrote:
I've attempt many standard and non-standard permutations of the tcp
tuning parameters without
At 05:24 AM 7/1/2008, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
So I had a very quick look at the code between doing something else.
I think the only change needed is this if I am not mistaken but my
head is far away nowhere close enough in this code.
Hi,
The patch seems to work in that there is not an RT
I've attempt many standard and non-standard permutations of the tcp
tuning parameters without much successful via sysctl. It feels like
FreeBSD is not handling the congestion very well and is beyond tuning
sysctl. It's just clients on the 100MB networks has slow/erratic reads;
Clients on the Giga
Apparently lagg hasn't been giant fixed :/ Can we do something about
this quickly?
with adaptive giant i get more performance on lagg but the cpu usage is
smashed 100%
I get about 50k more pps per interface (so 150kpps total which STILL is
less than a single gigabit port)
Check it out
68 p
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 04:37:01PM -0400, Paul wrote:
> Does anyone know if there is a maximum number of ARP entries/
> adjacencies that FBSD can handle before recycling?
>
In FreeBSD, ARP still uses routing table as its storage, and
as such limits on the routing table memory applies, and the
la
Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:30 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Synopsis: net80211 discards power-save queue packets early
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-i386->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: remko
Responsible-Changed-When: Thu Jun 19 10:29:47 UTC 2008
Responsi
Ok, now THIS is absoultely a whole bunch of ridiculousness..
I set up etherchannel, and I'm evenly distributing packets over em0 em1
and em2 to lagg0
and i get WORSE performance than with a single interface.. Can anyone
explain this one? This is horrible.
I got em0-em2 taskq's using 80% cpu EAC
Paul wrote:
ULE without PREEMPTION is now yeilding better results.
input (em0) output
packets errs bytespackets errs bytes colls
571595 40639 34564108 1 0226 0
577892 48865 34941908 1 0178 0
Does anyone know if there is a maximum number of ARP entries/
adjacencies that FBSD can handle before recycling?
I want to route several thousand ips direct to some interfaces so it
will have 3-4k ARP entries.. I'm curious because in Linux I have to set
the sysctl net.ipv4.neigh threshholds a l
Take it from someone who has spent a couple weeks beating his
head against a wall over this... system tuning is essential.
If your driver is going to the kernel looking for a resource and
having to wait, its gonna hurt...
Look into kern.ipc, and as Paul said net.inet.
Off the shelf config is mor
What options do you have enabled on the linux server?
sysctl -a | grep net.ipv4.tcp
and on the bsd
sysctl -a net.inet.tcp
It sounds like a problem with BSD not handing the dropped data or ack
packets so what happens is it pushes a burst of
data out > 100mbit and the switch drops the packets and
ULE without PREEMPTION is now yeilding better results.
input (em0) output
packets errs bytespackets errs bytes colls
571595 40639 34564108 1 0226 0
577892 48865 34941908 1 0178 0
545240 8474
I have a couple of questions regarding the TCP Stack:
I have a situation with clients on a 100MB network connecting to servers
on a Gigabit network where the client read speeds are very slow from the
FreeBSD server and fast from the Linux server; Write speeds from the
clients to both servers ar
I can't reproduce the 580kpps maximum that I saw when I first compiled
for some reason, I don't understand, the max I get even with ULE and
preemption
is now about 530 and it dips to 480 a lot.. The first time I tried it it
was at 580 and dipped to 520...what the?.. (kernel config attached at en
Hi,
it's probably because I don't understand the code but may I ask what
script_go() is supposed to do? The only function in dhclient.c using
execve() is priv_script_go() and this gets executed only once in main()
with $reason = PREINIT.
That's why I looked at the code in the first place: I can't
I am going to.. I have an opteron 270 dual set up on 32 bit and the 2212
is set up on 64 bit :)
Today should bring some 32 bit results as well as etherchannel results.
Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
Dear Paul,
Dual Opteron 2212, Recompiled kernel with 7-STABLE and removed a lot
of junk in the co
Thanks.. I was hoping I wasn't seeing things :>
I do not like inconsistencies.. :/
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings Paul,
--OK I'm stumped now.. Rebuilt with preemption and ULE and
preemption again and it's not doing what it did before..
I saw this in my configuration too :) Just leave
Andrew Thompson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 12:51:42PM +0300, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Hi,
May be a stupid questions, but:
1) There are zero matches of IFCAP_TOE in kernel sources .. there is not
support for TOE in 7.0, but may be this is work in progress for 8-current?
Yes, its in
Larry Baird wrote:
And how do I know that it works ?
Well, when it doesn't work, I do know it, quite quickly most of the
time !
I have to chime in here. I did most of the initial porting of the
NAT-T patches from Kame IPSec to FAST_IPSEC. I did look at every
line of code during this proce
Greetings Andrew,
The patch compiles and works as expected.
I noticed something strange btw - swi1: net was consuming 100% WCPU
(shown on top -S)
but I'm not sure this have something to do with your patch, as I can't
reproduce it right now ..
Andrew Thompson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 12
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 12:51:42PM +0300, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> May be a stupid questions, but:
>
> 1) There are zero matches of IFCAP_TOE in kernel sources .. there is not
> support for TOE in 7.0, but may be this is work in progress for 8-current?
Yes, its in current only. Just remo
Max Laier wrote:
Would you mind adding some words to that effect to your patch?
I think I'll hide it from public access instead. Looks like some people
prefer to patch kernel instead of learning how to make a queue on parent
interface.
--
Dixi.
Sem.
___
Max Laier wrote:
Now please ... let this die, it's stupid!
I wrote the patch for *very* specific purpose. I've never want to ask
commit it and I did not think it'll be use someone seriously.
Sorry for touching your religious sense :)
--
Dixi.
Sem.
_
On Tuesday 01 July 2008 15:21:35 Sergey Matveychuk wrote:
> Max Laier wrote:
> > Now please ... let this die, it's stupid!
>
> I wrote the patch for *very* specific purpose. I've never want to ask
> commit it and I did not think it'll be use someone seriously.
>
> Sorry for touching your religious
Hello,
I'm running the above configuration, RELENG_7 kernel and WPA, on an Asus
laptop eeePC 900 for which one must patch the HAL with:
http://snapshots.madwifi.org/special/madwifi-ng-r2756+ar5007.tar.gz )
all is fine, mostly, but when 'bgscan' is activated on the interface
ath0 it get stuck repr
Dear Paul,
Dual Opteron 2212, Recompiled kernel with 7-STABLE and removed a lot of junk
in the config, added
options NO_ADAPTIVE_MUTEXES not sure if that makes any difference
or not, will test without.
Used ULE scheduler, used preemption, CPUTYPE=opteron in /etc/make.conf
7.0-STABL
Dear Paul,
I have been unable to even come close to livelocking the machine with the em
driver interrupt moderation.
So that to me throws polling out the window. I tried 8000hz with polling
modified to allow 1 burst and it makes no difference
higher hz-values gives you better latenca but
Hi,
Sorry to reply to myself.
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Hi,
May be a stupid questions, but:
1) There are zero matches of IFCAP_TOE in kernel sources .. there is
not support for TOE in 7.0, but may be this is work in progress for
8-current?
2) In #define BRIDGE_IFCAPS_MASK (IFCAP_TOE|IFCAP_TSO|I
Hi,
May be a stupid questions, but:
1) There are zero matches of IFCAP_TOE in kernel sources .. there is not
support for TOE in 7.0, but may be this is work in progress for 8-current?
2) In #define BRIDGE_IFCAPS_MASK (IFCAP_TOE|IFCAP_TSO|IFCAP_TXCSUM) -
TOE should be repleaced with RXCSUM or j
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Hi,
Mike Tancsa wrote:
I am thinking
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2008-April/090303.html
is the commit ? If I revert to the prev version, the issue goes away.
Ha, I finally know why I e
Greetings Paul,
--OK I'm stumped now.. Rebuilt with preemption and ULE and
preemption again and it's not doing what it did before..
I saw this in my configuration too :) Just leave your test running for
longer time and you will see this strange inconsistency in action.
In my configurati
Robert Watson wrote:
An FYI on the state of things here: in the last month, John has
updated a number of device drivers to be MPSAFE, and the USB work
remains in-flight. I'm holding fire a bit on disabling IFF_NEEDSGIANT
while things settle and I catch up on driver state, and will likely
sen
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Hi,
Mike Tancsa wrote:
I am thinking
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2008-April/090303.html
is the commit ? If I revert to the prev version, the issue goes away.
Ha, I finally know why I ended up on Cc: of a thread I had no idea
about. S
There's an option to control how many packets it'll process each pass
through the isr thread, isn't there?
It'd be nicer if this stuff were able to be dynamically tuned.
Adrian
2008/7/1 Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [Big list of testing , rebuilding kernel follows]
>
> Dual Opteron 2212, Recomp
[Big list of testing , rebuilding kernel follows]
Dual Opteron 2212, Recompiled kernel with 7-STABLE and removed a lot of
junk in the config, added
options NO_ADAPTIVE_MUTEXES
not sure if that makes any difference or not, will test without.
Used ULE scheduler, used preemption, CPUTYP
Hi,
Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
Dear Rudy,
I used polling in FreeBSD 5.x and it helped a bunch. I set up a new
router with 7.0 and MSI was recommended to me. (I noticed no
difference when moving from polling -> MSI, however, on 5.4 polling
seemed to help a lot. What are people using in 7.0?
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Support (Rudy) wrote:
Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
usually interface polling is also chosen to prevent "lock-ups".
man polling
I used polling in FreeBSD 5.x and it helped a bunch. I set up a new
router with 7.0 and MSI was recommended to me. (I noticed no
difference w
Andrew Thompson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:16:29PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:11:40PM +0300, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I just noticed, that when I add em network card to bridge the checksum
> offload is turned off.
> I even put in my
Mike Tancsa wrote:
I am thinking
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2008-April/090303.html
is the commit ? If I revert to the prev version, the issue goes away.
Yes, this change doesn't look right. It should only do the route
lookup in ip_input.c when there was an EMSGSIZE error retur
39 matches
Mail list logo
