Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 17:53:41 -0400 From: Don Bowman <don@sandvine.com> To: 'Petri Helenius ' <pete@he.iki.fi>, Don Bowman <don@sandvine.com>, "'Kevin_Stevens@pursued-with.net '" <Kevin_Stevens@pursued-with.net> Cc: "'freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG '" <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: ENOBUFS Message-ID: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C8533701022CE5@mail.sandvine.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Petri Helenius >> >> Clearly I will have some tuning ahead, and likely I will not = succeed, >> but for sure my 1U XEON with 6 gigabit nics will work very hard >> for its living :) >> >Which NICs seem to work best here? I=B4ve been playing more with em >and it seems that the time spent in interrupts is quite high, I=B4m = seeing >15-17% for 300Mbps on 2.4 Xeon. This number seems to stay the same >whether I=B4m running UP or SMP kernel with 4.7-STABLE. > >Does "giant" in 4.X SMP context mean that the other CPU is idling = while >the other is either servicing interrupts or running kernel code? > >What would be the best course of action to implement optimizations >possible with later chips like 82546 to the em driver? Talk to Intel? Well, I'm definitely finding that I have more CPU free when using the broadcom BCM570X NIC (bge) than the Intel 8254X NIC (em). http://www.etestinglabs.com/main/reports/broadcom.asp http://www.etestinglabs.com/main/reports/3com.asp has a benchmark of the broadcom versus the intel. This is on a win2k platform. These benchmarks were paid for by broadcom,=20 so take them with a grain of salt. As for tuning the driver for either chip, you will need an NDA to get the documentation. --don (don@sandvine.com www.sandvine.com) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C8533701022CE5>