Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:49:14 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: daniel_k_eriksson@telia.com Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: serious networking (em) performance (ggate and NFS) problem Message-ID: <20041119.084914.26958488.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA/qWWqwitlkyUSHwJEUT%2BbwEAAAAA@telia.com> References: <20041118.095348.103081513.imp@bsdimp.com> <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA/qWWqwitlkyUSHwJEUT%2BbwEAAAAA@telia.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA/qWWqwitlkyUSHwJEUT+bwEAAAAA@telia.com>
"Daniel Eriksson" <daniel_k_eriksson@telia.com> writes:
: Finally, my question. What would you recommend:
: 1) Run with ACPI disabled and debug.mpsafenet=1 and hope that the mix of
: giant-safe and giant-locked (em and ahc) doesn't trigger any bugs. This is
: what I currently do.
: 2) Run with ACPI disabled and debug.mpsafenet=0 and accept lower network
: performance (it is a high-traffic server, so I'm not sure this is a valid
: option).
: 3) Run with ACPI enabled and debug.mpsafenet=1 and accept that em0
: interrupts "leak" to the atapci1+ ithread. This I have done in the past.
I don't know if I'm to a 'recommendation' so much as a 'I'd try your
normal configuration with mpsetfet=0' to see if that makes a
difference in the performance that you see.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041119.084914.26958488.imp>