Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:21:43 +0100 From: "OxY" <oxy@field.hu> To: "Jin Guojun [VFFS]" <g_jin@lbl.gov>, "Lucas Holt" <luke@foolishgames.com> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing Lists <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>, Arne Woerner <arne_woerner@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit Message-ID: <008501c65030$96726710$0201a8c0@oxy> References: <20060322071023.70808.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <442187FE.3060300@lbl.gov> <003301c64f44$89fdcd40$0201a8c0@oxy> <820F5FD6-C31F-4C28-9E66-64643C03086B@foolishgames.com> <4424520D.9000504@lbl.gov>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
what kind of details should i attach? to analyze the problem? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jin Guojun [VFFS]" <g_jin@lbl.gov> To: "Lucas Holt" <luke@foolishgames.com> Cc: "OxY" <oxy@field.hu>; "FreeBSD Mailing Lists" <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>; "Arne Woerner" <arne_woerner@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:09 PM Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit > Lucas Holt wrote: > >> >> On Mar 24, 2006, at 8:12 AM, OxY wrote: >> >>> hi guys! >>> >>> well, i changed my motherboard and CPU from the >>> asus a7v8x+amd 2000+ xp to >>> the abit be7 + p4 2.4 (533fsb) and the packet loss fell down from 8% >>> to 2%, but >>> still have loss... >>> loss coming when i have load.. i guess it decreased because of the >>> bigger resources. >>> still waiting for tipps, hints, everything :) >>> >>> >> >> I don't think you'll ever get down to 0% in your situation. I noticed >> in the initial post that you have net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable=1 set. >> On my home network, turning that off helped a great deal with samba >> traffic to my freebsd file server/ router. It didn't seem to affect >> traffic to my webserver much, but its very low traffic. The problem >> with tuning on other people's settings is that each workload is >> different though. > > Especially, when a user did not mention what network traffic condition and > system load > cause packet loss, it is difficult to get insight of the problem. So, the > other thing in getting > help in troubleshooting and performance tuning is to provide systematic > and more detailed > information. > >> There might not be a miracle hack to get this working how you want. I'm >> sure the new box is a bit better as I attempted some of the steps >> outlined by Jin on my two machines. (amd 2300+ w/ msi nforce2 512mb ram >> and P4 2.4ghz 1gb ram 533mhz fsb) The P4 system was faster on all my >> tests by quite a large margin. > > Just curious, were all your tests I/O related? 2300+ should over perform > P4 2.4GHz in some > computation tasks. > >> I must admit, I didn't follow all of Jin's calculations. > > I had quite sloppy email since I did not intend to involve detailed > hardware discussion, but... > For example, when I said that "cache design affects memory bandwidth [x1]" > is very vague. > It really means: "cache design affects memory copy speed (except DMA)." > Generally, if we talk access data between CPU and main memory, then > technically [x1] is right. > If we talk to entire system design, theoretically, [x1] is wrong. > I stand corrected for all such writing. > > -Jin >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?008501c65030$96726710$0201a8c0>