two processors.
Any help/insight is greatly appreciated
Thanks!
--
Marcos Bedinelli
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
l consider your
suggestion.
Thanks,
--
Marcos Bedinelli UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Develop. Group - CNS
voice : +1 416 978 70634 BANCROFT AV - RV 101C
fax : +1 416 978 6620TORONTO ON M5S 1C
Hello all,
thanks for the replies. Most of you have suggested that I turn on
polling and give it a try. The machine is in production, hence I need
to schedule downtime for that.
The system is mainly being used as a dedicated router. It runs OSPF,
BGP and IPFW (around 150 rules). OSPF and BGP
Hi,
On 10-Feb-06, at 13:06, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Marcos Bedinelli wrote:
[ ... ]
mull [~]$vmstat -i
interrupt total rate
irq1: atkbd03466 0
irq6: fdc010 0
irq13: npx0
Hi Julian,
On 10-Feb-06, at 14:54, Julian Elischer wrote:
I have found that most people can optimise there ipfw rulests
considerably.
for example: a first rule of:
1 allow ip from any to any in recv {inside interfacfe}
2 allow ip from any to any out xmit {inside interface}
will cut your ipfw
Hi,
On 10-Feb-06, at 16:39, dima wrote:
The second CPU wouldn't help you for sure. There's only one [swi1:
net] kernel thread which deals with all the kernel traffic. The option
of per-CPU [swi: net] threads was discussed on freebsd-arch@ several
months ago, but it wouldn't be implemented so
assemble a dual processor system from spare parts and also play with
fastforwarding.
I will be glad to post the results of my tests to the mailing list, but
it may take awhile.
Cheers!
On 14-Feb-06, at 9:52, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 09:27:46AM -0500, Marcos Bedinell
Hi,
On 27-Apr-06, at 10:38, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Hi, Robert,
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:54:21PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATETIME WCPU
COMMAND
60 root 1 -44 -163 0K 8K WAIT
