Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:50:17 -0400 From: Paul <paul@gtcomm.net> To: Ingo Flaschberger <if@xip.at> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Subject: Re: Freebsd IP Forwarding performance (question, and some info) [7-stable, current, em, smp] Message-ID: <486849E9.6010405@gtcomm.net> In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0806300343120.10999@filebunker.xip.at> References: <4867420D.7090406@gtcomm.net> <alpine.LFD.1.10.0806291255480.7208@filebunker.xip.at> <4867A9A1.9070507@gtcomm.net> <alpine.LFD.1.10.0806300105170.10999@filebunker.xip.at> <48681A3D.9040509@gtcomm.net> <alpine.LFD.1.10.0806300214210.10999@filebunker.xip.at> <200806300034.m5U0YfsF077111@lava.sentex.ca> <48682F15.6070707@gtcomm.net> <alpine.LFD.1.10.0806300343120.10999@filebunker.xip.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The higher I set the buffer the worse it is.. 256 and 512 I get about 50-60k more pps than i do with 2048 or 4096.. You would think it would be the other way around but obviously there is some contention going on. :/ I'm sticking with 512 for now, as it seems to make it worse with anything higher. Keep in mind, i'm using random source ips, random source and destination ports.. Although that should have zero impact on the amount of PPS it can route but for some reason it seems to.. ? Any ideas on that one? A single stream one source ip/port to one destination ip/port seems to use less cpu, although I haven't generated the same pps with that yet.. I am going to test it soon Ingo Flaschberger wrote: > Dear Paul, > >> I tried this.. I put 6-STABLE (6.3), using default driver was slower >> than FBSD7 > > have you set the rx/tx buffers? > > /boot/loader.conf > hw.em.rxd=4096 > hw.em.txd=4096 > > bye, > Ingo >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?486849E9.6010405>