From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 4 15:26:40 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B5516A420 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:26:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com) Received: from blah.sun-fish.com (blah.sun-fish.com [217.18.249.150]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7610F13C46E for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:26:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com) Received: by blah.sun-fish.com (Postfix, from userid 1002) id E88C71B10EDC; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:26:38 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on blah.cmotd.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.6 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Received: from hater.haters.org (hater.cmotd.com [192.168.3.125]) by blah.sun-fish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5DA41B10F2C for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:26:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47A72EAB.6070602@moneybookers.com> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:26:35 +0200 From: Stefan Lambrev User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071120) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <4794E6CC.1050107@moneybookers.com> <47A0B023.5020401@moneybookers.com> <47A3074A.3040409@moneybookers.com> In-Reply-To: <47A3074A.3040409@moneybookers.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: network performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:26:40 -0000 Greetings, In my desire to increase network throughput, and to be able to handle more then ~250-270kpps I started experimenting with lagg and link aggregation control protocol (lacp). To my surprise this doesn't increase the amount of packets my server can handle Here is what netstat reports: netstat -w1 -I lagg0 input (lagg0) output packets errs bytes packets errs bytes colls 267180 0 16030806 254056 0 14735542 0 266875 0 16012506 253829 0 14722260 0 netstat -w1 -I em0 input (em0) output packets errs bytes packets errs bytes colls 124789 72976 7487340 115329 0 6690468 0 126860 67350 7611600 114769 0 6658002 0 netstat -w1 -I em2 input (em2) output packets errs bytes packets errs bytes colls 123695 65533 7421700 113575 0 6584856 0 130277 62646 7816626 113648 0 6592280 0 123545 64171 7412706 113714 0 6596174 0 Using lagg doesn't improve situation at all, and also errors are not reported. Also using lagg increased content switches: procs memory page disk faults cpu r b w avm fre flt re pi po fr sr ad4 in sy cs us sy id 1 0 0 81048 1914640 52 0 0 0 50 0 0 3036 37902 13512 1 20 79 0 0 0 81048 1914640 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 9582 83 22166 0 56 44 0 0 0 81048 1914640 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 9594 80 22028 0 55 45 0 0 0 81048 1914640 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 9593 82 22095 0 56 44 Top showed for CPU states +55% system, which is quite high? I'll use hwpmc and lock_profiling to see where the kernel spends it's time. -- Best Wishes, Stefan Lambrev ICQ# 24134177