From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 12 13:44:13 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C58016A407 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:44:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Rich@WhiteOakLabs.com) Received: from whiteoaklabs.com (mail.whiteoaklabs.com [69.55.226.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 370AB13C448 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:44:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Rich@WhiteOakLabs.com) Received: from xa.home.org (cpe-24-174-80-60.houston.res.rr.com [24.174.80.60]) by whiteoaklabs.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l0CDSXqs031841 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:28:33 -0800 Received: from [172.16.1.6] (a.home.org [172.16.1.6]) by xa.home.org (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l0CDUhZ8056308 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:30:43 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from Rich@WhiteOakLabs.com) Message-ID: <45A78CFC.1080607@WhiteOakLabs.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:28:28 -0600 From: Rich Murphey User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <379658.99357.qm@web30309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <379658.99357.qm@web30309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DCC-sonic.net-Metrics: whiteoaklabs.com 1117; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: Re: network perf : em driver ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:44:13 -0000 R. B. Riddick wrote: > --- Patrick Proniewski wrote: > >> I'll give FTP a try, but I would like the network to be fast for >> every protocols. I'm planning to share data using NFS, WebDAV, or SMB >> (and scp occasionally), but I've still to choose and configure >> appropriate servers. >> >> > We had that problem before: Some HTTP server implementations just dont bring > it... :-) thttpd is quite efficient, I have heard... > > You can try > 1. src/tools/tools/netrate/netblast > 2. increase MTU (ifconfig em0 mtu 65536 or so; never tried that myself) > 3. ports/benchmarks/tcpblast > 4. build something with nc: > server: nc -l 1234 > /dev/null > client: dd if=/dev/zero bs=1m | nc serverIP 1234 > which will eliminate disk latency... > > -Arne > lighttpd has good support for kqueue and sendfile, so depending on whether the measurement will include lots of http connections or static files, it may be worth considering. It's feature set and code size are somewhat larger than thttpd I believe. Rich