From owner-freebsd-net Fri Oct 12 11:58:48 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from smtp1.sentex.ca (smtp1.sentex.ca [199.212.134.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4427B37B403 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:58:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from simoeon.sentex.net (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by smtp1.sentex.ca (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9CIwfQ35882; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:58:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011012144947.07264b50@marble.sentex.ca> X-Sender: mdtpop@marble.sentex.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:52:26 -0400 To: Luigi Rizzo From: Mike Tancsa Subject: Re: strange results with increased net.inet.ip.intr_queue_maxlen Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <200110121842.f9CIgAI21150@iguana.aciri.org> References: <20011012143302.A8938@ddm.wox.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 11:42 AM 10/12/01 -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > If you find yourself hitting the queue limit I'd suggest using RED or > > GRED with ipfw to drop packets more intelligently before the hard limit > >we are talking about a different queue here, which is not managed by >ipfw (now you are actually giving me an idea on adding this >feature...) Speaking about ipfw, am I better off performance wise going to ipfilter ? Or do you think ipfw is more efficient ? Also, I am going to swap in an athlon 1.4G with DDR RAM in place of the celeron 866. I am curious to see how just changing the hardware will effect the rate of packet drops. If it is resource related I should see a difference. ---Mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message