On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
Here are my results:
Good news:
Well after fiddling around with it, it seems if I bump the number of
rx_bds to 512, disable polling, and use net.isr.direct=1, bge does not
drop packets anymore (as verified by assigning a counter within
bge_ticks() whe
We use the following for line rate gig capture on em's so you should be safe to
increase from 1048576.
net.bpf.maxbufsize=20971520
net.bpf.bufsize=20971520
- Original Message -
From: "Alexander Sack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Packets still get dropped but this time by BPF. It seems I push
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So the million dollar question: Do you believe that if I disable
> > DEVICE_POLLING and use interrupt driven I/O, I could achieve zero
> > packet loss over a 1Gbps link? This is the main issue I need to solve
> > (solve m
Robert Watson wrote:
I would generally discourage use of our current DEVICE_POLLING code
using modern network devices, as the polling rate as compared to buffer
size has changed significantly, meaning that polling rates have to be
set ridiculously high.
I agree, from my playing around ther
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
[DEVICE_POLLING]
But why was it added to begin with if standard interrupt driven I/O is
faster? (was it the fact that historically h
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
Gotcha, this is really good to know. FreeBSD is a new OS for me to work on
but I'm learning so much everyday! I believe Solaris uses ithreads natively
and I do know there are some drivers that forcefully create kernel threads
to handle interrupts a
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
>
>
> > Robert, alright, this all makes sense. So it seems to me that the first
> step to salvation in my world is to turn off DEVICE_POLLING and rely on the
> interrupt coale
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
For my own edification, when do you want use DEVICE_POLLING versus
interrupt driven network I/O? With all question like these I suppose
the answer depends on the workload and the interrupt bandwidth of the
machine (which depends on the type of hardwa
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
Robert, alright, this all makes sense. So it seems to me that the first
step to salvation in my world is to turn off DEVICE_POLLING and rely on the
interrupt coalescing that exists on the card. My only concern if this does
work is what impact this
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > First off thanks for the detailed reply Bruce. I have some follow-up
> > questions in my quest to learn more about BGE/networking etc.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53 PM
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
First off thanks for the detailed reply Bruce. I have some follow-up
questions in my quest to learn more about BGE/networking etc.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
On
First off thanks for the detailed reply Bruce. I have some follow-up
questions in my quest to learn more about BGE/networking etc.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Jung-uk Kim
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Jung-uk Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 04:28 pm, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Jung-uk Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> [CC trimmed]
>>
>> On Wednesday 16 April 2
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 05:02 pm, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Jung-uk Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Wednesday 16 April 2008 04:28 pm, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Jung-uk Kim
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Jung-uk Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 April 2008 04:28 pm, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Jung-uk Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > [CC trimmed]
> > >
> > > On Wednesday 16 April 2008 02:20 pm, Alexander Sack
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 04:28 pm, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Jung-uk Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > [CC trimmed]
> >
> > On Wednesday 16 April 2008 02:20 pm, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > > Dieter: Thanks, at 20Mbps! That's pretty aweful.
> > >
> > > JK: Than
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Jung-uk Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [CC trimmed]
>
>
> On Wednesday 16 April 2008 02:20 pm, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > Dieter: Thanks, at 20Mbps! That's pretty aweful.
> >
> > JK: Thanks again. Wow, I searched the list and didn't see much
> > discussion
[CC trimmed]
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 02:20 pm, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Dieter: Thanks, at 20Mbps! That's pretty aweful.
>
> JK: Thanks again. Wow, I searched the list and didn't see much
> discussion with respect to bge and packet loss! I will try the
> rest of that patch including pushing
Dieter: Thanks, at 20Mbps! That's pretty aweful.
JK: Thanks again. Wow, I searched the list and didn't see much
discussion with respect to bge and packet loss! I will try the rest
of that patch including pushing the TCP receive buffer up (though I
don't think that's going to help in this case)
> I'm investigating an issue we are seeing with 6.1-RELEASE and the bge
> driver dropping packets sporadically at 100MBps speed.
> Its get mainly aggravated when heavy disk I/O occurs
> Has anyone seen this problem before with bge? Am I barking up the
> wrong tree with my initial investigation?
Hello:
Sorry for cross posting but this seems to be both a driver and
network/kernel issue so I figure I actually thought all lists seemed
appropriate.
I'm investigating an issue we are seeing with 6.1-RELEASE and the bge
driver dropping packets sporadically at 100MBps speed. The machine is
a 2-
21 matches
Mail list logo
