>
> Fabien, since you have the necesary hardware to stimulate the
> FreeBSD box, would it be too much to ask you to run some packet
> capture tests with your polling implementation and the capturing
> interface set to IFF_MONITOR? The userland program should use pcap and
> simply increment a coun
On 9/6/07, Fabien THOMAS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 t
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
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
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
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 has lower performance than interrupt.
To solve that
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 has lower performance than interrupt.
>To solve that issue i've rewritt
