From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 21 01:17:36 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB701919 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:17:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from khatfield@socllc.net) Received: from smtp151.dfw.emailsrvr.com (smtp151.dfw.emailsrvr.com [67.192.241.151]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83BD8FC12 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:17:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp5.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id EFAB859869; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:17:35 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp5.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: khatfield-AT-socllc.net) with ESMTPSA id 7208A59855; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:17:35 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: FreeBSD boxes as a 'router'... References: <1353448328.76219.YahooMailClassic@web121602.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <50AC08EC.8070107@mu.org> From: khatfield@socllc.net Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <50AC08EC.8070107@mu.org> Message-Id: <1236216591.34082.1353460654415@238ae4dab3b4454b88aea4d9f7c372c1.nuevasync.com> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:17:30 -0600 To: Alfred Perlstein X-NS-Received: from Apple-iPhone5C2/1001.525(khatfield@socllc.net) SECURED(HTTPS); Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:17:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Barney Cordoba , Jim Thompson , "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:17:37 -0000 I got side tracked and missed the new system question. In a newer system with an Intel em card then you likely won't need it. Howe= ver don't play with the HZ settings. If you still see the delays recompile = with polling on default. Verify on the NIC as well such as ifconfig em0 If it isn't on you can try to do it manually per NIC. We sometimes saw earl= y connection drops with new systems and polling enabled. (Could have also b= een a sysctl misconfiguration on our part) In either case, try the new system first and then one step at a time. Sorry for the double-posts. On Nov 20, 2012, at 4:49 PM, "Alfred Perlstein" wrote: > On 11/20/12 2:42 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Nov 20, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Barney Cordoba w= rote: >>=20 >>> Anyone who even mentions polling should be discounted altogether. Polli= ng >>> had value when you couldn't control the interrupt delays; but interrupt >>> moderation allows you to pace the interrupts any way you like without >>> the inefficiencies of polling. >> You're entitled to your opinion, but experimental results have tended to= show yours incorrect. >>=20 >> Jim > Agree with Jim. If you want pure packet performance you burn a core to r= un a polling loop. >=20 > -Alfred