From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 2 11:54:31 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pf@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B180616A403; Wed, 2 May 2007 11:54:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru) Received: from pobox.codelabs.ru (pobox.codelabs.ru [144.206.177.45]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C6613C469; Wed, 2 May 2007 11:54:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=one; d=codelabs.ru; h=Received:Resent-From:Resent-Date:Resent-Message-ID:Resent-To:Date:From:To:Cc:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:Resent-Sender:Resent-Date:X-Spam-Status:Subject; b=BIs0bqfJuP8Sn6FJ2mkK1mysPffULqt5v6luRNQS5kF1De9idmV+BDWLCfWJuGLOXDtMvYLliimrJ/ZWtmHDXgAeHjZChypyJihC2a3JvXp6y0I8aCdvL6f4A9103+YAsd1cmDBxtZ8Biy/tc/7qzOUFYR0UvDVagNZsInDZtFA=; Received: from codelabs.ru (pobox.codelabs.ru [144.206.177.45]) by pobox.codelabs.ru with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) id 1HjDPh-0005US-Ud; Wed, 02 May 2007 15:54:30 +0400 Resent-From: rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru Resent-Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 15:54:25 +0400 Resent-Message-ID: <20070502115425.GQ7358@codelabs.ru> Resent-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, max@love2party.net, pf@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 15:40:05 +0400 From: Eygene Ryabinkin To: Nate Lawson Message-ID: <20070502114005.GM7358@codelabs.ru> References: <4617D3A6.8000201@root.org> <20070409094010.GL26348@codelabs.ru> <461FDD28.6030502@root.org> <20070413204237.GG49158@codelabs.ru> <461FEE6D.4030201@root.org> <20070413212742.GH49158@codelabs.ru> <20070430112726.GA71812@codelabs.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070430112726.GA71812@codelabs.ru> Resent-Sender: rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru Resent-Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 15:54:29 +0400 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_05 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: call for testers: altq in current X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 11:54:31 -0000 Nate, *, good day. Sorry for the previous posting: I had messed the things and posted the old message to the list. Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 03:27:26PM +0400, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: > > > On the new code but without loading cpufreq and leaving the freq at 2200 > > > Mhz, do you get the right numbers? Are they constant? > > > > Monday will reveal the things. Will post an update. > > Was not able to test the things on Monday. But will try to do it > on this week. OK, with new code (patched with my patch) and cpufreq the download rate is more-or-less stable. But it is 4x larger than the limit I'd set in the pf.conf. And there are times when the rate goes straight to the maximal link bandwidth overriding any altq statements. But later it returns to the stable (4x larger) figure. Without cpureq I have stable rate, but it is again larger than the value specified in the pf.conf. At the time of testing I got the multiplier 33 (for the 3Kb specified in pf.conf I got 100 Kbit as measured by ifstat and fetch), but I feel that reboot or kernel recompilation will give me some other multiplier. And I still have the bumps of the bandwidth to the link-rate limit. To conclude: the frequency callback is doing its work now (with my patch). Since I have strange results with the real rates I will continue my investigations and will try to post updates when I will discover something. -- Eygene