On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 12:59:27PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Attila Nagy wrote:
> >
> > With a dc ethernet card and ~45K packets per second, an XP1700 system went
> > from > 50% interrupt to < 1%. I was astounded at the change!
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 12:59:27PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Attila Nagy wrote:
>
> With a dc ethernet card and ~45K packets per second, an XP1700 system went
> from > 50% interrupt to < 1%. I was astounded at the change!
that is partly cheating, because with polling, some
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Attila Nagy wrote:
With a dc ethernet card and ~45K packets per second, an XP1700 system went
from > 50% interrupt to < 1%. I was astounded at the change!
If all it takes to get Gb interfaces polling is to send Luigi a card then
he needs to send me his shipping address:)
---
Mike Silbersack wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Christopher Smith wrote:
> > The rule processing can't be done on the other CPU, can it ? Am I right in
> > saying that at this point in time, buying a dual CPU (vs single CPU) machine
> > for firewalling with FreeBSD is just a waste of money ?
>
> Eve
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 11:18:42AM +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
...
> Ok, so any of the network benching products that can spit out a stream of
> UDP traffic should suffice ?
i presume so, yes. I have some tweaks in the kernel to duplicate packets
in the kernel and get higher peak rates, but t
On 10/10/02 10:00 AM, "Luigi Rizzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 09:38:40AM +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
> ...
>> With the 2.4GHz 2650 we have currently, er, "borrowed" to do some testing
>> with, the load is down to 35% or so (highest I've seen it is 40%) and the
>> pa
On 10/10/02 9:26 AM, "Andre Oppermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[chomp]
> He probably can't tell because of the 32bit ifstats counters. They
> wrap every other minute on a well loaded Gigabit card.
A 'systat -ip 1' shows rates ranging from 120kpps to 250kpps, averaging
around the 150 - 180 ra
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> my general attitude is that when you are hitting 100% cpu
> utilization, small performance improvements such as those
> deriving from m_getcl() are not relevant, and you might
> want to restructure your sw in order to get substantial
> performance improvements.
>
> In the
On 9/10/2002 6:20 PM, "Attila Nagy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
[chomp]
> and
> sys/kern/kern_poll.c:
> [...]
> #ifdef SMP
> #include "opt_lint.h"
> #ifndef COMPILING_LINT
> #error DEVICE_POLLING is not compatible with SMP
> #endif
> #endif
> [...]
>
> (no SMP support)
This I can live
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> than move to a different board, or use polling (i have polling
> patches for the intel gigabit adapter)
If you mean em(4) - I'd love to test them :-)
Lars
--
Lars Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> USC Information Sciences Institute
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Crypto
my general attitude is that when you are hitting 100% cpu
utilization, small performance improvements such as those
deriving from m_getcl() are not relevant, and you might
want to restructure your sw in order to get substantial
performance improvements.
In the specific case, at least reading from
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Christopher Smith wrote:
> No, we use IPFilter (and that definitely isn't going to change any time
> soon).
Oh. Hm, maybe IPFilter 4.0 will be faster.
What you might consider doing is profiling the kernel on your test system
to see where the majority of the cpu time is g
Hello,
> You might want to try out some of the Intel gigabit boards. At least
> we've got an engineer from Intel who maintains the driver.
I'm far from being a FreeBSD expert, but Luigi Rizzo's polling patch
helped me a lot in similar cases to get better performance.
>From POLLING(4):
DESCRIPTI
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Christopher Smith wrote:
> On 9/10/02 3:07 PM, "Mike Silbersack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> >> We have two firewalls sitting on gigabit links. Each has 2 Netgear GA620
> >> (ti driver) fibre cards with abo
On 9/10/02 3:07 PM, "Mike Silbersack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>> We have two firewalls sitting on gigabit links. Each has 2 Netgear GA620
>> (ti driver) fibre cards with about 7 vlans spread across them. Both these
>> machines run at *v
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Christopher Smith wrote:
> We have two firewalls sitting on gigabit links. Each has 2 Netgear GA620
> (ti driver) fibre cards with about 7 vlans spread across them. Both these
> machines run at *very* high interrupt loads (95 - 100% during business hours
> (mostly 100%), 8
[ taking -questions out of the CC list, please don't send things to more
than 2 lists, the mail servers don't usually allow it in any case. ]
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 13:41:38 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
> We have two firewalls sitting on gigabit links. Each has 2 Netgear GA620
> (ti driver)
We have two firewalls sitting on gigabit links. Each has 2 Netgear GA620
(ti driver) fibre cards with about 7 vlans spread across them. Both these
machines run at *very* high interrupt loads (95 - 100% during business hours
(mostly 100%), 80 - 90 % during off hours). They are 1GHz P3 machines (
18 matches
Mail list logo
