On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 08:45:30 +0200
Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
> Hello,
>
> That is mostly for the record but it looks like the intel X520 is not
> very good and generates a high level of interrupts.
...
Oh I forgot to thank you all for yours replies, sorry.
I will try to play with the paramete
16.07.2020 16:03, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 16.07.2020 14:57, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
>
>>> I'm sure pf is the bottle-neck. Try testing such card without any
>>> packet filter enabled and you'll see great difference definitely.
>>
>> That's not a good news as I don't see how to simplify the rule
16.07.2020 14:57, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
>> I'm sure pf is the bottle-neck. Try testing such card without any
>> packet filter enabled and you'll see great difference definitely.
>
> That's not a good news as I don't see how to simplify the ruleset :(
> But thanks anyway :)
First, you need to
On 16 Jul 2020, at 9:57, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 17:07:23 +0700
Eugene Grosbein wrote:
Hello,
That is mostly for the record but it looks like the intel X520 is
not very good and generates a high level of interrupts.
On a router / firewall with 500 Kpps in input (dropped
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 17:07:23 +0700
Eugene Grosbein wrote:
Hello,
> > That is mostly for the record but it looks like the intel X520 is
> > not very good and generates a high level of interrupts.
> >
> > On a router / firewall with 500 Kpps in input (dropped by pf) is
> > enough to put the CPUs
10.07.2020 13:45, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
> Hello,
>
> That is mostly for the record but it looks like the intel X520 is not
> very good and generates a high level of interrupts.
>
> On a router / firewall with 500 Kpps in input (dropped by pf) is enough to
> put the CPUs at
> 100% busy.
[sk
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:21:11 +0200
Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote:
Hi Olivier,
> > That is mostly for the record but it looks like the intel X520 is
> > not very good and generates a high level of interrupts.
> >
> > On a router / firewall with 500 Kpps in input (dropped by pf) is
> > enough to put
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:45 AM Patrick Lamaiziere
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> That is mostly for the record but it looks like the intel X520 is not
> very good and generates a high level of interrupts.
>
> On a router / firewall with 500 Kpps in input (dropped by pf) is enough to
> put the CPUs at
> 100
Hello
This interface is 14.8 Mpps, but such capacity is only possible
without a firewall performing filtering.
The more firewall rules on your router, the less forwarding capacity
the card will have, due to having to process the packet in CPU to
match the rules and then forward the packet.
In the
Hello,
That is mostly for the record but it looks like the intel X520 is not
very good and generates a high level of interrupts.
On a router / firewall with 500 Kpps in input (dropped by pf) is enough to put
the CPUs at
100% busy.
We use FreeBSD 11.3 on a machine with 12 CPU Intel(R) Xeon(R) CP
10 matches
Mail list logo
