From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jan 8 7:26:44 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from void.dynip.com (hobax1-220.dialup.optusnet.com.au [198.142.190.220]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0210151B6 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 07:26:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from death@southcom.com.au) Received: from windows (windows.void.net [192.168.1.2]) by void.dynip.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B731A5599 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 02:26:35 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000109021927.00dba250@mail.southcom.com.au> X-Sender: death@mail.southcom.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 02:26:30 +1100 To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG From: james Subject: RE: 4.0 slower than 3.4? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi, Sorry.. It seems i've stuffed up here. Somehow ipf was enabled. Doing "ipf -D" has sped things up. However, i am still seeing a 10-20% speed decrease from 3.4-STABLE. FTP transfers are still only on 5.8MB/s - not 7.7MB/s like they used to be. It's interesting though how i had no ipf rules whatsoever, yet it introduced so much latency, as Alexander has pointed out in another email. Why is ipf so slow? I was planning on switching from ipfw/natd to ipf/ipnat, but i don't think i want to now - considering it's so darn slow. Would it make a speed difference if i have ipf sitting there but disabled with "ipf -D"? Once again, sorry for buggering up. :( Cheers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message