> In the machine what PCIe speed does it state its using? What CPU's do you
> have as to push closer to 10Gbps your going to need a quick machine.
Good point. 5Gbps could indicate that the PCI-e slot is only
negotiating 4x as opposed to 8x.
-Kip
___
fre
s
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "William Salt"
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 2:52 PM
Subject: Intel 10GbE Tuning under freebsd
Hi All,
I have just got a couple of 10GbE intel X520-DA2 cards to test. Im
running freebsd 8.1 on a super micro intel xeon server,
reebsd for 10GbE,
> or many recommendations, and wondered if anyone has already successfully
> managed to tune freebsd with intel 10gbe nics, to gain a higher throughput?
> If so, has anyone got any tips, or sample configs?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Will
>
Oh, another thought, LRO is not enabled by default, it causes problems when
you are forwarding, but if you are just passing back to back traffic it
helps
enormously, so use ifconfig to enable it on the interface.
Jack
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing
iver probably needs to be tuned, as well
> as
> the OS.
>
> After a bit of googling, i cant find a tuning guide under freebsd for
> 10GbE,
> or many recommendations, and wondered if anyone has already successfully
> managed to tune freebsd with intel 10gbe nics, to gain
be tuned, as well as
the OS.
After a bit of googling, i cant find a tuning guide under freebsd for 10GbE,
or many recommendations, and wondered if anyone has already successfully
managed to tune freebsd with intel 10gbe nics, to gain a higher throughput?
If so, has anyone got any tips, or sample
On 02/09/2011 07:27 PM, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
On 9 February 2011 18:15, rihad wrote:
On 02/09/2011 05:47 PM, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
On 9 February 2011 12:37, rihadwrote:
Problem solved, I'm so embarrassed :) The issue on 7.2 mentioned above
with
ixgbe (tons of "fragmentation failed"
On 9 February 2011 18:15, rihad wrote:
> On 02/09/2011 05:47 PM, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
>>
>> On 9 February 2011 12:37, rihad wrote:
>>>
>>> Problem solved, I'm so embarrassed :) The issue on 7.2 mentioned above
>>> with
>>> ixgbe (tons of "fragmentation failed" errors) was real. The issue in
>>
On 02/09/2011 05:47 PM, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
On 9 February 2011 12:37, rihad wrote:
Problem solved, I'm so embarrassed :) The issue on 7.2 mentioned above with
ixgbe (tons of "fragmentation failed" errors) was real. The issue in 8.3-RC3
was because dummynet wasn't being loaded at all... so n
On 9 February 2011 12:37, rihad wrote:
> Problem solved, I'm so embarrassed :) The issue on 7.2 mentioned above with
> ixgbe (tons of "fragmentation failed" errors) was real. The issue in 8.3-RC3
> was because dummynet wasn't being loaded at all... so no traffic could pass
> on it, despite dummyne
Problem solved, I'm so embarrassed :) The issue on 7.2 mentioned above
with ixgbe (tons of "fragmentation failed" errors) was real. The issue
in 8.3-RC3 was because dummynet wasn't being loaded at all... so no
traffic could pass on it, despite dummynet_load="YES" being set in
/boot/loader.conf.
On 02/09/2011 10:43 AM, Nikolay Denev wrote:
I don't know if it's the same issue, but I had severe performance issues
with ixgbe cards until I disable LRO (ifconfig ix0 -lro). That was on 7.2 too.
So did I, with LR-based cards. But CX4 cards don't mention LRO in their
ifconfig enabled flags.
; approaching the bandwidth limitation we switched the cards for a two-port
> Intel 10GbE CX4 PCI-E adapter. With the then used FreeBSD 7.2 and the
> built-in FreeBSD ixgbe driver 1.7.3 (IIRC) it was very slow, and at only
> about 300-400 mbps load (~30-50 IP kpps) the internet access was
a two-port Intel 10GbE CX4 PCI-E adapter. With the then used FreeBSD
7.2 and the built-in FreeBSD ixgbe driver 1.7.3 (IIRC) it was very slow,
and at only about 300-400 mbps load (~30-50 IP kpps) the internet access
was very slow. Also, there were many "IP fragmentation failed" errors
Petri Helenius wrote:
>
> ming fu wrote:
>
> > Does this one replace the em driver?
> >
> >
> It does not. However as far as I understand the semantics of the chips
> aren´t that much different so I wonder why another driver instead of
> adding to em.
>From reading both drivers it seems the 10Gb
ming fu wrote:
Does this one replace the em driver?
It does not. However as far as I understand the semantics of the chips
aren´t that much different so I wonder why another driver instead of
adding to em.
Pete
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Tony Ackerman wrote:
> We have commited the ixgb(4) driver for Intel(R) PRO/10GbE Server
> Adapters to -current and -stable.
Tony,
When I took a look at the ixgb driver a couple of weeks ago, it looked
like there was currently no locking in the driver to allow it to execut
Does this one replace the em driver?
Tony Ackerman wrote:
We have commited the ixgb(4) driver for Intel(R) PRO/10GbE Server Adapters to -current
and -stable.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsu
We have commited the ixgb(4) driver for Intel(R) PRO/10GbE Server Adapters to -current
and -stable.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Is there planned support for the 82597EX (10 GbE) chipset and if there is a plan,
is that incremental development on the em driver or completely separate piece of
code? At least the linux driver seems to be separate, although the chip semantics
seem very similar of the later 8254X (1 GbE) chips.
20 matches
Mail list logo
