Tony Sarendal wrote:
Nope-- it's a Supermicro 6023P-8
(http://supermicro.com/products/system/2U/6023/SYS-6023P-8.cfm). Intel
Xeon 2.4, 533mhz bus, onboard dual Intel 82546EB gige nics, 133mhz
PCI-X, etc. etc. I'm running a snapshot from June 3 and as far as I can
tell, apm is not enabled (did a
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 22:39, Sean Knox wrote:
> Tony Sarendal wrote:
> >>>On Tuesday 07 June 2005 20:17, Sean Knox wrote:
> I installed the NIC to the shared PCI slot and it has helped, but not
> as much as I expected. Now that all NICs are sharing an IRQ, interrupt
> usage has drop
Tony Sarendal wrote:
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 20:17, Sean Knox wrote:
I installed the NIC to the shared PCI slot and it has helped, but not as
much as I expected. Now that all NICs are sharing an IRQ, interrupt
usage has dropped from ~90% to ~70%. I'm pushing about 25 kb/s
across two NICs,
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 20:56, Sean Knox wrote:
> Tony Sarendal wrote:
> > On Tuesday 07 June 2005 20:17, Sean Knox wrote:
> >>I installed the NIC to the shared PCI slot and it has helped, but not as
> >>much as I expected. Now that all NICs are sharing an IRQ, interrupt
> >>usage has dropped from
Tony Sarendal wrote:
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 20:17, Sean Knox wrote:
I installed the NIC to the shared PCI slot and it has helped, but not as
much as I expected. Now that all NICs are sharing an IRQ, interrupt
usage has dropped from ~90% to ~70%. I'm pushing about 25 kb/s
across two NICs, w
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 20:17, Sean Knox wrote:
> I installed the NIC to the shared PCI slot and it has helped, but not as
> much as I expected. Now that all NICs are sharing an IRQ, interrupt
> usage has dropped from ~90% to ~70%. I'm pushing about 25 kb/s
> across two NICs, which makes me won
I installed the NIC to the shared PCI slot and it has helped, but not as
much as I expected. Now that all NICs are sharing an IRQ, interrupt
usage has dropped from ~90% to ~70%. I'm pushing about 25 kb/s
across two NICs, which makes me wonder the max throughput I can expect
on a firewall on
Bill Marquette wrote:
On 6/2/05, Sean Knox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey Bill-
Is IRQ sharing done in BIOS? I'm using 2 onboard em(4) NICs and a dual
port em(4) on a Supermicro 6023P-8:
This was all done in BIOS on HP DL380's.
The Supermicro BIOS (forgot the brand offhand) doesn't allow
On 6/2/05, Sean Knox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Bill-
>
> Is IRQ sharing done in BIOS? I'm using 2 onboard em(4) NICs and a dual
> port em(4) on a Supermicro 6023P-8:
This was all done in BIOS on HP DL380's.
> em0 at pci3 dev 2 function 0 "Intel PRO/1000MT DP (82546EB)" rev 0x01:
> irq 12,
Bill Marquette wrote:
I saw a pretty significant performance boost on some of my IDS boxen
by putting the NICs on the same IRQ. There was also a tuning article
written quite some time ago (no idea about it's current day relevance)
that suggested the same. The IDS boxen have em(4) cards in the
On 6/2/05, Sean Knox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Bob,
>
> Thanks for the info. I originally asked as I'm seeing between 80 and 90
> percent interrupts on a gigabit firewall with some em(4) cards. I think
> my issue may be expected given the scenario, so I'll pose that question
> to the group
Hey Bob,
Thanks for the info. I originally asked as I'm seeing between 80 and 90
percent interrupts on a gigabit firewall with some em(4) cards. I think
my issue may be expected given the scenario, so I'll pose that question
to the group in a different thread.
thanks,
sk
Bob Beck wrote:
the idle loop problem will affect any driver that uses
tsleep where stuff might need to be serviced from the idle loop.
the bge booboo I found and fixed earlier with krw was
that of it not testing correctly if interrupts were for itself
in the shared interrupt case. totally differe
On 6/1/05, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I said "there was a boo boo in the bge interrupt handler"; this
> affects ALL bge.
Good to hear. I'll have to try a snapshot and see if it addresses
the bge issues I have (PE1750 silently dropping some TCP packets). Or
should I wait a few mo
I said "there was a boo boo in the bge interrupt handler"; this
affects ALL bge.
The idle loop stuff affects all i386 boxes with a hlt'ing BIOS period.
On Jun 1, 2005, at 7:38 PM, Sean Knox wrote:
Marco Peereboom wrote:
I remember that there was a boo boo in the bge interrupt
handler.
Marco Peereboom wrote:
I remember that there was a boo boo in the bge interrupt handler.
beck@ found it and I believe krw@ fixed it. If you can you should try
something newer, like -current or whenever brad@ the latest releases
3.7 errata that includes the "idle loop fix".
Does this aff
On May 30, 2005, at 10:55 AM, Frank Denis (Jedi/Sector One) wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:37:16AM -0400, Jamie Yukes wrote:
I have a Dell Poweredge 1750 with basically OpenBSD 3.6 (3.5-
current Aug 2004)
It has the dual onboard Gigabit links, using the Broadcom BCM5704C
chipset.
I can't
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:37:16AM -0400, Jamie Yukes wrote:
> I have a Dell Poweredge 1750 with basically OpenBSD 3.6 (3.5-current Aug 2004)
> It has the dual onboard Gigabit links, using the Broadcom BCM5704C chipset.
> I can't seem to handle more than 120Mbps of VoIP traffic on this link.
> The
18 matches
Mail list logo
