Re: FreeBSD 7.1 taskq em performance

2009-04-27 Thread Ray Kinsella
Joseph, I would recommend that you start with PMCStat and figure where the bottleneck is, Given that you have a two threads and your CPU is at 100%, my a apriori guess would be a contention for a spinlock, so I might also try to use LOCK_PROFILING to handle on this. Regards Ray Kinsella On Fri

Current problem reports assigned to freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org

2009-04-27 Thread FreeBSD bugmaster
Note: to view an individual PR, use: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=(number). The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users. These represent problem reports covering all versions including experimental development code and obsolete releases. S Tracker

Re: [dummynet] Several queues connected to one pipe: "dummynet: OUCH! pipe should have been idle!"

2009-04-27 Thread Maxim Ignatenko
2009/4/27 Luigi Rizzo : > > ok there seems to be no change related to dummynet between these > two versions so I am not sure where to look. > Could you double check what is the last working version ? > Yes, r191201 have this problems too (it seems, i didn't updated for a long time). Now I updated

Re: [dummynet] Several queues connected to one pipe: "dummynet: OUCH! pipe should have been idle!"

2009-04-27 Thread Luigi Rizzo
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:51:18PM +0300, Maxim Ignatenko wrote: > 2009/4/27 Luigi Rizzo : > > > > ok there seems to be no change related to dummynet between these > > two versions so I am not sure where to look. > > Could you double check what is the last working version ? > > > Yes, r191201 have

Re: [dummynet] Several queues connected to one pipe: "dummynet: OUCH! pipe should have been idle!"

2009-04-27 Thread Maxim Ignatenko
2009/4/27 Luigi Rizzo : > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:51:18PM +0300, Maxim Ignatenko wrote: >> 2009/4/27 Luigi Rizzo : >> > >> > ok there seems to be no change related to dummynet between these >> > two versions so I am not sure where to look. >> > Could you double check what is the last working ver

Re: IPFW MAX RULES COUNT PERFORMANCE

2009-04-27 Thread Daniel Dias Gonçalves
Julian, You could give an example of rules with tables? Julian Elischer escreveu: Daniel Dias Gonçalves wrote: Very good thinking, congratulations, but my need is another. The objective is a Captive Porrtal that each authentication is dynamically created a rule to ALLOW or COUNT IP authentica

Re: IPFW MAX RULES COUNT PERFORMANCE

2009-04-27 Thread Daniel Dias Gonçalves
What may be happening ? I'm with polling enabled on all interfaces, can you influence ? em0: port 0x7000-0x703f mem 0xdfa0-0xdfa1 irq 16 at device 8.0 on pci4 em1: port 0x7400-0x743f mem 0xdfa2-0xdfa3 irq 17 at device 8.1 on pci4 em2: port 0x8000-0x803f mem 0xdfb0-0xdfb

Re: IPFW MAX RULES COUNT PERFORMANCE

2009-04-27 Thread Daniel Dias Gonçalves
Going to another example. If I wanted that each authentication (username and password) in captive portal, set up rules limiting the speed of the user's IP, as I do? I can create two rules for the in / out for each user associated with a pipe? When simulating this with a script adding hundreds o

Re: [dummynet] Several queues connected to one pipe: "dummynet: OUCH! pipe should have been idle!"

2009-04-27 Thread Maxim Ignatenko
2009/4/27 Oleg Bulyzhin : > > Perhaps you stepped on this: > > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=879027+0+archive/2009/svn-src-all/20090419.svn-src-all > > You can try to change type of dn_pipe.numbytes to int64_t (instead of dn_key). > (ip_dummynet.h:341) > This is exactly what is done

Re: [dummynet] Several queues connected to one pipe: "dummynet: OUCH! pipe should have been idle!"

2009-04-27 Thread Oleg Bulyzhin
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 05:44:22PM +0300, Maxim Ignatenko wrote: > 2009/4/27 Luigi Rizzo : > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:51:18PM +0300, Maxim Ignatenko wrote: > >> 2009/4/27 Luigi Rizzo : > >> > > >> > ok there seems to be no change related to dummynet between these > >> > two versions so I am not

Re: [dummynet] Several queues connected to one pipe: "dummynet: OUCH! pipe should have been idle!"

2009-04-27 Thread Luigi Rizzo
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:08:54PM +0400, Oleg Bulyzhin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 05:44:22PM +0300, Maxim Ignatenko wrote: ... > > > yes it would be great if you could identify a specific change that > > > caused the problem. > > > There is one thing particularly tricky in one of the dummyne

Re: IPFW MAX RULES COUNT PERFORMANCE

2009-04-27 Thread Adrian Chadd
You may want to investigate using pf; i'm not sure whether they handle this better. Me, I'd investigate writing a "tree" ipfw rule type. Ie, instead of having a list of rules, all evaluated one at a time, I'd create a rule implementing a subrule match on ip/netmask with some kind of action (allow,

Re: IPFW MAX RULES COUNT PERFORMANCE

2009-04-27 Thread Ian Smith
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Daniel Dias Gonçalves wrote: > What may be happening ? I'm with polling enabled on all interfaces, can you > influence ? > > em0: port 0x7000-0x703f mem > 0xdfa0-0xdfa1 irq 16 at device 8.0 on pci4 > em1: port 0x7400-0x743f mem > 0xdfa2-0xdfa3 irq 17 a

Re: IPFW MAX RULES COUNT PERFORMANCE

2009-04-27 Thread Julian Elischer
Daniel Dias Gonçalves wrote: Julian, You could give an example of rules with tables? I'm sorry I forgot that you want to count packets from each client. tables won't work for that. for counting I suggest the technique I show below, but for just allowing, you can add allowable addresses to a