Re: Netmap-Ipfw: eats 90-100% of CPU, is it normal behaviour ?

2014-12-31 Thread info
Hello, All! In addition to previous info I can say, that netmap-ipfw takes about 95% in top -PHS, even if firewall is fully open: 60 root 1000 885M 342M CPU00 621:31 92.38% kipfw when first rule is "allow ip from any to any" May be it needs more RAM ? currently is 885M (R

Re: Dynamic ipfw rules' top

2014-12-31 Thread Guido Falsi
On 12/31/14 15:43, Andrea Venturoli wrote: > Hello. > > This might be a strange idea, but does such a thing exist? > > I mean: is there any tool that can show in real-time which dynamic rules > are active, their timers, etc... like top does for processes? > I'm using the port sysutils/cmdwatch

Dynamic ipfw rules' top

2014-12-31 Thread Andrea Venturoli
Hello. This might be a strange idea, but does such a thing exist? I mean: is there any tool that can show in real-time which dynamic rules are active, their timers, etc... like top does for processes? bye & Thanks av. ___ freebsd-net@freebs

Netmap-Ipfw: eats 90-100% of CPU, is it normal behaviour ?

2014-12-31 Thread info
Hello, All ! We tried to use netmap-ipfw in production (as filtering bridge) for traffic sanity and bandwidth limitation. And meet a problem. Will be explaned below. CPU: i5-4690 CPU @ 3.50GHz RAM: 8GB x 1800Mhz NET: Intel DA 520 (2 x 10Gbps) kipfw starts as: /usr/local/netmap-ipfw/kipfw netm

Re: Tying down network interfaces

2014-12-31 Thread Martin Birgmeier
The devices are PCI cards, no USB is involved. I assume that I'd have to add lines similar to hint.sis.0.at="pci0:9:0" to /boot/device.hints, but I am unsure of the correct syntax. See also these old articles (which ultimately seem to have gone unanswered): http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/