From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 25 17:21:44 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27BB16A400 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:21:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from oxy@field.hu) Received: from green.field.hu (green.field.hu [217.20.130.28]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E4543D45 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:21:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from oxy@field.hu) Received: from localhost (green.field.hu [217.20.130.28]) by green.field.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDA0D119D2E; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:20:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from green.field.hu ([217.20.130.28]) by localhost (green.field.hu [217.20.130.28]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54067-05; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:20:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from oxy (dsl217-197-187-71.pool.tvnet.hu [217.197.187.71]) by green.field.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7787D119CA5; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:20:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <008501c65030$96726710$0201a8c0@oxy> From: "OxY" To: "Jin Guojun [VFFS]" , "Lucas Holt" 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> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:21:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 X-Virus-Scanned: by Amavisd-new (Spamassassin+Razor2+Pyzor+DCC+Bayes db, Clamd Antivirus) at field.hu Cc: FreeBSD Mailing Lists , Arne Woerner Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:21:44 -0000 what kind of details should i attach? to analyze the problem? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jin Guojun [VFFS]" To: "Lucas Holt" Cc: "OxY" ; "FreeBSD Mailing Lists" ; "Arne Woerner" 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 >