From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 4 18:50:09 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53F9616A41B for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 18:50:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cristi@net.utcluj.ro) Received: from bavaria.utcluj.ro (unknown [IPv6:2001:b30:5000:2:20e:cff:fe4b:ca01]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82DDF13C46E for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 18:50:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cristi@net.utcluj.ro) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bavaria.utcluj.ro (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2505084B; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:50:06 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by the daemon playing with your mail on local.mail.utcluj.ro Received: from bavaria.utcluj.ro ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bavaria.utcluj.ro [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ARNIHHMxce6K; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:49:59 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [172.27.2.200] (c7.campus.utcluj.ro [193.226.6.226]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bavaria.utcluj.ro (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C9B508B0; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:49:59 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <470535D6.7020601@net.utcluj.ro> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:49:58 +0300 From: Cristian KLEIN User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (X11/20070824) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lists@codeangels.com References: <4703F9C3.2060601@net.utcluj.ro> <4532.192.168.2.137.1191451931.squirrel@www.codeangels.com> In-Reply-To: <4532.192.168.2.137.1191451931.squirrel@www.codeangels.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.2.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD as a gigabit router X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:50:09 -0000 Thank you all for your replies. Kirill Ponazdyr wrote: >> Hi list, >> >> A few days ago I tested whether a FreeBSD 7 box is able to handle Gigabit >> Can anybody point me what the bottleneck of this configuration is? CPU was >> mostly idle and PCIe 1x should carry way more. Or is the experiment >> perhaps >> fundamentally flawed? > > ICMP is not a good way to perform such tests as many have mentioned, > better use iperf. I used this test, because it proved perfect when, almost a decade ago, gigabit appeared. There wasn't anything at that time that could fill 1 Gbps, so we used the routers themselves to do the job. Also, I used this setup to avoid TCPs congestion control mecachnism and sub-maximum bandwidth. Of course, when I said "ping -f", I didn't mean a single "ping -f", but rather enough ping -f so that the looping packets would saturate the link. > We have a FreeBSD 6.2 / pf box handling 2Gbps of traffic, real traffic, it > will probably handle more, we just had no capacities or need to test. > > Hardware is a Single 2.4 Ghz Xeon with 2 x Intel Quad Pro 1000MT PCI-X > Controllers on separate PCI-X Busses. Could you tell me, is there any difference between 1000PT and 1000MT, except the slot type? Also, is there any difference between Intel Desktop and Intel Server adaptors, or are these just marketing buzzwords?