From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 5 23:03:01 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA8616A41A for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:03:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cryx-freebsd@h3q.com) Received: from mail.h3q.com (mail.h3q.com [213.73.89.199]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3031413C447 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:03:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cryx-freebsd@h3q.com) Received: (qmail 65283 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2007 23:02:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO goa.local) (smtpsend@85.179.28.51) by mail.h3q.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 5 Dec 2007 23:02:59 -0000 Message-ID: <47572E23.2050303@h3q.com> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:02:59 +0100 From: Philipp Wuensche User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Tancsa References: <4755ED57.6030603@h3q.com> <200712051616.lB5GGGvb029587@lava.sentex.ca> <4756DE7E.1000104@h3q.com> <200712051729.lB5HTAkn029896@lava.sentex.ca> <475723FB.4020304@h3q.com> <200712052228.lB5MSJYA031170@lava.sentex.ca> In-Reply-To: <200712052228.lB5MSJYA031170@lava.sentex.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tuning for high connection rates 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: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:03:02 -0000 Mike Tancsa wrote: > At 05:19 PM 12/5/2007, Philipp Wuensche wrote: > >> After switching to net.isr.direct=0 and 346609775 good packets later, RX >> overruns haven't increased by one! Thats nice. Still interrupt is using >> up the CPU. I'm not quite sure if polling would help now!? > > Polling is helpful to prevent livelock. Not sure if thats happening to > you. No problems with livelock, system is usable all the time. > What firewall (if any) are you using ? pf used to be a lot slower > than ipfw. We use pf. Disabling it at all gives no noticable performance boost because instead performance drops due to connections from networks we currently filter. Maybe ipfw is faster, we could try that but would like to use pf furthermore. > Another thing to try is to turn back on Fast Interrupt handling. I think > its currently disabled. > > In if_em.h, try adding > > #define EM_FAST_IRQ 1 > > and then recompile the kernel or just driver. Seems to be enabled by default on freebsd7, from our if_em.h: /* Set FAST handling on by default */ #if __FreeBSD_version > 700000 #define EM_FAST_IRQ #endif greetings, cryx