From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jan 8 0:13:11 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from info.iet.unipi.it (info.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.184]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16EC415140 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:13:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from luigi@info.iet.unipi.it) Received: (from luigi@localhost) by info.iet.unipi.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA09599; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 09:13:17 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from luigi) From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <200001080813.JAA09599@info.iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: 4.0 slower than 3.4? In-Reply-To: from Jason Young at "Jan 8, 2000 02:01:38 am" To: Jason Young Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 09:13:17 +0100 (CET) Cc: "'james'" , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL61 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I think i saw something similar -- while testing pieces of ipfw code using rdtsc() calls around the section of code of interest, i notice that 4.0 seems to lose a couple of microseconds (over 8-10) wrt/ the same code in 3.4. No idea though on what is going on. > It probably isn't the best of all ideas to have BOTH IP firewalling > solutions installed and running at once. This will add some overhead. Pick > one and stick with it. And why do you have DUMMYNET running? he has both configured but none running (at least -- not dummynet, according to his ruleset, and he does not say anything about ipfilter). cheers luigi -----------------------------------+------------------------------------- Luigi RIZZO, luigi@iet.unipi.it . Dip. di Ing. dell'Informazione http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ . Universita` di Pisa TEL/FAX: +39-050-568.533/522 . via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) Mobile +39-347-0373137 -----------------------------------+------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message