From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 27 09:39:25 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org 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 3AE5016A400 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:39:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from smtp4-g19.free.fr (smtp4-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90FA43D48 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:39:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (tataz.chchile.org [82.233.239.98]) by smtp4-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C7EB545DA; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:39:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from obiwan.tataz.chchile.org (unknown [192.168.1.25]) by tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E50229C5C4; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:39:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obiwan.tataz.chchile.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B12D7405B; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:39:16 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:39:16 +0200 From: Jeremie Le Hen To: Marcos Bedinelli Message-ID: <20060427093916.GC84148@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <7bb8f24157080b6aaacb897a99259df9@madhaus.cns.utoronto.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7bb8f24157080b6aaacb897a99259df9@madhaus.cns.utoronto.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [fbsd] Network performance in a dual CPU system 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, 27 Apr 2006 09:39:25 -0000 Hi Marcos, On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:46:00AM -0500, Marcos Bedinelli wrote: > Hello all, > > We have a 2.4GHz Intel Xeon machine running FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE-p2. Due > to heavy network traffic, CPU utilization on that machine is 100%: > > === > > mull [~]$top -S > last pid: 94989; load averages: 3.69, 4.02, 4.36 up > 25+07:21:34 14:51:43 > 105 processes: 2 running, 46 sleeping, 57 waiting > CPU states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.3% system, 99.4% interrupt, > 0.3% idle > Mem: 20M Active, 153M Inact, 84M Wired, 4K Cache, 60M Buf, 237M Free > Swap: 999M Total, 999M Free > > PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU COMMAND > 60 root 1 -44 -163 0K 8K WAIT 355.6H 72.17% swi1: > net > 39 root 1 -68 -187 0K 8K WAIT 52.3H 5.22% irq28: > bge0 > 40 root 1 -68 -187 0K 8K WAIT 28.3H 2.25% irq29: > bge1 > 11 root 1 171 52 0K 8K RUN 166.6H 0.00% idle > 63 root 1 -16 0 0K 8K - 121:55 0.00% yarrow > 61 root 1 -32 -151 0K 8K WAIT 46:21 0.00% swi4: > clock sio > [...] > > === > > > Does anyone know whether a dual CPU system can help us improve the > situation? I was wondering if the software interrupt threads would be > divided between the two processors. I am a few weeks late, I just saw this very interesting thread. What solution did you finally employ to circumvent your high interrupt load ? Regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >