From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 16 15:46:39 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 488B716A4CE for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:46:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16DD43D60 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:46:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7881F129399 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:46:32 -0400 (AST) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23773-04 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:46:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-46-186.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.186]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102B6129395 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:46:32 -0400 (AST) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 52FB3E69B4; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:46:35 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49C7DE69B0 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:46:35 -0400 (AST) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:46:35 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20050316112225.Y92893@ganymede.hub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org Subject: Too many IPs assigned to an interface? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:46:39 -0000 Since talking about ng_fec, and the cisco switch, I started to play with it a bit, and one of the things I've finally setup is snmp/mrtg, so that I can monitor bw activity ... one thing that I've noticed is that two of my machines are doing alot of bandwidth, while the other two are doing significantly less ... The thing is, the ones that are doing significantly less are the ones that have the most IPs assigned to their interfaces ... based on 5 minute averages: neptune - 68kb/s In, 119kb/s Out, 92 IPs assigned, Dual Xeon mars - 289kb/s In, 320kb/s Out, 35 IPs assigned, Dual PIII vmstat 5 on neptune: 102 3 0 1722316 206436 258 0 1 0 465 0 4 49 511 3885 2398 3 86 12 102 3 0 1681208 205624 74 0 0 0 63 0 1 0 305 3293 1233 2 57 41 96 3 0 1702012 189492 69 0 0 0 845 0 6 6 342 3606 2066 6 53 41 91 3 0 1699380 151064 85 0 0 0 2072 0 12 12 418 2752 3239 9 23 69 90 3 0 1681276 148584 53 0 0 0 463 0 1 3 325 2554 2266 6 23 72 vmstat 5 on mars: 11 5 0 4071268 211624 2329 1 2 1 1348 486 0 0 710 378 1049 6 24 70 14 5 0 4059324 198648 597648 0 0 0 920 0 18 157 933 7267 12086 4 56 40 15 5 0 4070128 189200 652140 1 0 0 853 0 4 122 931 6188 9166 5 52 44 16 5 0 4056332 211964 693722 0 2 0 1690 1558 1 167 1276 5614 4517 9 49 42 16 5 0 4012580 208272 722681 0 0 0 1133 0 3 137 909 3839 5456 6 48 46 the other one that seems 'low' for traffic is a Dual Athlon (85 IPs) ... the other that is high for traffic is another Dual PIII (21) ... So, is network performance that greatly affected by # of IPs assigned to the interface itself? Or is there maybe another factor involved? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664