From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 18 00:30:08 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA99516A4CE for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:30:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pi.codefab.com (pi.codefab.com [199.103.21.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0983A43D5E for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:29:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from [192.168.1.250] (pool-68-161-115-118.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.161.115.118]) by pi.codefab.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAI0TWk3082541 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:29:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <419BECD6.8010008@mac.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:29:10 -0500 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Emanuel Strobl References: <200411172357.47735.Emanuel.Strobl@gmx.net> <1100733439.21798.36.camel@server.mcneil.com> <200411180031.36222.Emanuel.Strobl@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <200411180031.36222.Emanuel.Strobl@gmx.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.64 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on pi.codefab.com cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: serious networking (em) performance (ggate and NFS) problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:30:08 -0000 Emanuel Strobl wrote: [ ... ] > No, because I observed similar bad performance with my fileserver which is > almost the same HW and it's em (Intel GbE) is connected to the local > 100baseTX segment. Can you mention a little more about your hardware, or perhaps put a dmesg on a website somewhere? If you don't have PCI-E hardware, especially if you are using classic 32-bit/33MHz PCI rather than a GbE adaptor via your mainboard's chipset, you're going to be limited by PCI bus throughput. [I'd still expect you to be going faster if this was the case, however.] Also, have you done any tuning of NMBCLUSTERS or the net.inet sysctls? > I explicitly avoided to go via any switch/hub to eliminate further problems. > I wonder if anybody has ever been able to transfer more than 17MB/s via IP > anyway? Sure. I've got a pair of Apple Xserves in a rack which got ~90 MB/s FTP for five ~600MB CD-ROM ISO images via a 3com gigabit switch. The machine doing the writing was using a four-disk RAID-10 setup via the internal SATA-150 drive bays, but I paused between each transfer so some of that transfer rate may be due to stuff in RAM but not yet flushed to disk, so take that number cum grano salis. > I need this performance for mirroring via ggate, so I'm thinking about fwe (IP > over Firewire). > Perhaps somebody has tried this already? If fwe gives reasonable transferrates > I guess the perfomance problem won't be found in ethernet but in IP. Well, I think Firewire is great and FreeBSD seems to have a very good implementation, so this might well be a reasonable alternative path. That being said, gigabit ethernet ought to do as well or better than Firewire if you can resolve this performance issue. -- -Chuck