Re: 6.x, 4.x ipfw/dummynet pf/altq - network performance issues

2007-03-01 Thread Chris
On 15/02/07, Justin Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is definitely worst-case, it's simulating a DDoS attack at the network. What is really surprising is that just 1mbps of traffic is able to kill a 6.x box doing routing. If it were, say, 600mbps that I'd understand as you're pushing o

Re: : 6.x, 4.x ipfw/dummynet pf/altq - network performance issues

2007-02-17 Thread Justin Robertson
Sack was never enabled, the packets in the flood had sack set. rtmaxcache was default, what made you think I had changed it? I was not running SMP, as I explained. More over suggestions to do ether.ipfw result in terrible performance, etc. A 4.11 bridge and 4.11 router in series move all

RE:: 6.x, 4.x ipfw/dummynet pf/altq - network performance issues

2007-02-17 Thread garcol
Hi, if you disable sack, what's happend? (sysctl net.inet.tcp.sack.enable=0) (Are Memory and cpu OK?) For route problem you can set this to a low value, for example 10 sysctl net.inet.ip.rtexpire: 10 See http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/securing-freebsd.html Why

Re: 6.x, 4.x ipfw/dummynet pf/altq - network performance issues

2007-02-15 Thread Justin Robertson
This is definitely worst-case, it's simulating a DDoS attack at the network. What is really surprising is that just 1mbps of traffic is able to kill a 6.x box doing routing. If it were, say, 600mbps that I'd understand as you're pushing over a million PPS. But 1mbps? :-\ Freddie Cash wrote

Re: 6.x, 4.x ipfw/dummynet pf/altq - network performance issues

2007-02-15 Thread Freddie Cash
On Thursday 15 February 2007 01:29 pm, Justin Robertson wrote: > Send a flood of 60 byte syn packets with the tcp sack option thru > it and check out what happens. It's pretty weird and I can't explain > why. If you block the packets on the box via ipfw it's fine, the second > it has to make a

Re: 6.x, 4.x ipfw/dummynet pf/altq - network performance issues

2007-02-15 Thread Justin Robertson
Send a flood of 60 byte syn packets with the tcp sack option thru it and check out what happens. It's pretty weird and I can't explain why. If you block the packets on the box via ipfw it's fine, the second it has to make a routing decision everything goes out the window, it seems. There's

Re: 6.x, 4.x ipfw/dummynet pf/altq - network performance issues

2007-02-15 Thread Freddie Cash
On Thursday 15 February 2007 11:43 am, Justin Robertson wrote: > Playing with these sysctl values made 0 difference - what's supposed > to happen??? > > Another scary discovery - if you've got 6.2 setup to route, even with > static routes, 1Mbps of TCP SYN traffic will cause it to start droppin

Re: 6.x, 4.x ipfw/dummynet pf/altq - network performance issues

2007-02-15 Thread Justin Robertson
Playing with these sysctl values made 0 difference - what's supposed to happen??? Another scary discovery - if you've got 6.2 setup to route, even with static routes, 1Mbps of TCP SYN traffic will cause it to start dropping packets in every direction. Awesome. Methinks I'll be using 4.11 for

Re: 6.x, 4.x ipfw/dummynet pf/altq - network performance issues

2007-02-13 Thread Justin Robertson
Clockrate is based off of my device_polling setup, which is configured to 4000. burst_max has a hard limit, can't go higher than it already is at 1000 Could I get an explanation as to what the queue and isr sysctl values are actually doing? I'll be able to run some more basic tests tomorro