From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 30 10:18:42 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE3F81065673 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:18:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.235]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F018FC12 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:18:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so1476659rvf.43 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:18:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:received:date:from :to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=UL5lbijdQ/Q0nSk0vsqQZbdHYdw/wTzOf0RX9FPvfoo=; b=aPQrLRJCqaOOm+fuhMBzyOEUKiYVWd/9WHMJFs9wFtob4/TO++itxVHSOlRMDVfGKs OOkouUnXMrBxs19fDa2PpW7gqWuswxVBoXpbOKeyQMN6ONnZbnmvyyEN2h9cFSyHO7eO DNvGEr/+0EIuTsBYirv17bdRwhOGeubwR/5Jk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=RzPU3moybttclHZ2A7mjC5jv93l6CRPMjrWwcobMHiTIFnw7udUX4uRSHroWuXW1sL 7mRTJcJXEkaTeJ/aYjok0nrGkiy3jHn3bXZsAwmgUwO2EAKXqALapOeoIfFvK68F3ywQ 4KlEWVmE3787wmQLUqn7VbdPJzn/7ghPQMUZg= Received: by 10.140.250.14 with SMTP id x14mr2526778rvh.79.1214821122332; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr ( [211.53.35.84]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g31sm7477149rvb.2.2008.06.30.03.18.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (localhost.cdnetworks.co.kr [127.0.0.1]) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id m5UAGWCa081297 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:16:32 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: (from yongari@localhost) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id m5UAGTAP081296; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:16:29 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:16:29 +0900 From: Pyun YongHyeon To: Stefan Lambrev Message-ID: <20080630101629.GD79537@cdnetworks.co.kr> References: <4868A34C.6030304@moneybookers.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4868A34C.6030304@moneybookers.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: if_bridge turns off checksum offload of members? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:18:43 -0000 On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:11:40PM +0300, Stefan Lambrev wrote: > Greetings, > > I just noticed, that when I add em network card to bridge the checksum > offload is turned off. > I even put in my rc.conf: > ifconfig_em0="rxcsum up" > ifconfig_em1="rxcsum up" > but after reboot both em0 and em1 have this feature disabled. > > Is this expected behavior? Should I care about csum in bridge mode? > I noticed that enabling checksum offload manually improve things little btw. > AFAIK this is intended one, bridge(4) turns off Tx side checksum offload by default. I think disabling Tx checksum offload is required as not all members of a bridge may be able to do checksum offload. The same is true for TSO but it seems that bridge(4) doesn't disable it. If all members of bridge have the same hardware capability I think bridge(4) may not need to disable Tx side hardware assistance. I guess bridge(4) can scan every interface capabilities in a member and can decide what hardware assistance can be activated instead of blindly turning off Tx side hardware assistance. > Also I'm experimenting with bridge performance and with today's 7-stable > I can't reach > the results from my previous test with 7-current (before few months) > > The best that bridge can do today is just 720kpps (just incoming) vs > 1000kpps with sources from few months ago. > I'm using the same hardware and same configuration so I'm not sure why > -stable is slower. > > -- > > Best Wishes, > Stefan Lambrev > ICQ# 24134177 > -- Regards, Pyun YongHyeon