From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 29 06:39:35 2010 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 DBDB0106564A for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 06:39:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kes-kes@yandex.ru) Received: from forward17.mail.yandex.net (forward17.mail.yandex.net [95.108.253.142]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866A28FC08 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 06:39:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp17.mail.yandex.net (smtp17.mail.yandex.net [95.108.252.17]) by forward17.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 979CFA587D6; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:39:26 +0400 (MSD) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1288334366; bh=/bJKNax954wPatQMuWgHKcAxxvXQt5Vowai5AITzGBY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:Message-ID:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To: References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=LHQ9K853qWxze7BexQP3w564PBt9EwLBz46T9+PpyonC1E9wrDRkTdHgDGMsKcVmb QT4m9oQz5TDs8PArm3x6dzJB4BXl1+F4OSQus3DjgAH4SXe79UBmnNCOl/AOt85UBc hzM0Q6FVfLWQot8vDRRbKAw3thensjfn4pbGFfQ8= Received: from HOMEUSER (unknown [77.93.38.34]) by smtp17.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTPA id 51F923070062; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:39:26 +0400 (MSD) X-Nat-Received: from [192.168.11.27]:1797 [ident-empty] by SPAM FILTER: with TPROXY id 1288333939.20836 abuse-to kes-kes@yandex.ru Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:39:26 +0300 From: =?koi8-r?B?68/O2MvP1yDl18fFzsnK?= X-Mailer: The Bat! (v4.0.24) Professional Organization: =?koi8-r?B?/vAg68/O2MvP1ywgRnJlZUxpbmU=?= X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <606859717.20101029093926@yandex.ru> To: Chuck Swiger In-Reply-To: <1452146D-A590-4676-A662-14D0EEE82152@mac.com> References: <1519248747.20101028232111@yandex.ru> <1452146D-A590-4676-A662-14D0EEE82152@mac.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Yandex-TimeMark: 1288334366 X-Yandex-Spam: 1 X-Yandex-Front: smtp17.mail.yandex.net X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:07:27 +0000 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re[2]: Polling slows down bandwidth X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: =?koi8-r?B?68/O2MvP1yDl18fFzsnK?= List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 06:39:35 -0000 Здравствуйте, Chuck. Вы писали 28 октября 2010 г., 23:41:58: CS> On Oct 28, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Коньков Евгений wrote: >> [ ... ] CS> What is "sysctl kern.clockrate", and have you increased kern.hz CS> in /boot/loader.conf to at least 1000, if not 2000 or 4000? # vmstat -i interrupt total rate irq14: ata0 193948 6 irq16: rl0 42829515 1464 irq23: nfe0 41224044 1409 cpu0: timer 58494158 1999 irq256: igb0 106911 3 irq257: igb0 254606 8 irq258: igb0 2 0 Total 143103184 4892 # sysctl kern.clockrate kern.clockrate: { hz = 1000, tick = 1000, profhz = 2000, stathz = 133 } # sysctl kern.hz kern.hz: 1000 but I have configured and installed kern with 2000HZ "systat -v" shows that: 2002 cpu0: time CS> Polling mode operation generally performs better when using older CS> 100Mbs ethernet NICs which do not support interrupt mitigation and CS> various capabilities like TSO4; gigabit ethernet NICs are smarter CS> hardware and can generally outperform polling mode. so using polling on gigabit NICs is a bottle neck? and is cause of low performance, is not? -- С уважением, Коньков mailto:kes-kes@yandex.ru