Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:17:30 -0600 From: khatfield@socllc.net To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com>, Jim Thompson <jim@netgate.com>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD boxes as a 'router'... Message-ID: <1236216591.34082.1353460654415@238ae4dab3b4454b88aea4d9f7c372c1.nuevasync.com> In-Reply-To: <50AC08EC.8070107@mu.org> References: <1353448328.76219.YahooMailClassic@web121602.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <E1F4816E-676C-4630-9FA1-817F737D007D@netgate.com> <50AC08EC.8070107@mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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" <bright@mu.org> wrote: > On 11/20/12 2:42 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Nov 20, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1236216591.34082.1353460654415>