From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 25 18:31:54 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B0FC47C for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:31:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC09C1305 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:31:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id c10so9038061wiw.12 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:31:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+q6AQsSBbGYGsh3yFvs+o8uEflnQzQlb6r/YvNdITdk=; b=ELRC4BPxDO7BMODABk2M/tR1fpmNPg7/4eIrRlCdaKO1xblhj6Z3CszmhVp/YsJeTI T+5AN7cz3PvO0ZMsn2v4CgOQuN1Dlnb4UU+d4FIfphvrCDO41i7ux7wghd2oAdZgVJXi GbNKPUQWxp1juiOOb0zuuFTENbAGSwOtZCg4G93BwxxxVPI2KToNjgKkiDapB1BW0od4 4g//HA6AfdPFg6XlCcWIxLHolwVl0EZRcEl47tFD97SOszcr/uC8bX410gVM+wuTt9VR jKEBS12/Ru4kKxqTK8C3ymQvoLtSw1CMJwoV6ALjmAIDIw+qVDvMT8d3noHmRR5ayMGS Vj9g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.119.33 with SMTP id kr1mr77539141wjb.36.1366914713107; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:31:53 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.217.58.138 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:31:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <517974DA.5090809@soe.ucsc.edu> References: <5176E5C1.9090601@soe.ucsc.edu> <201304240134.22740.vegeta@tuxpowered.net> <517974DA.5090809@soe.ucsc.edu> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:31:53 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5gGKIqVLpXw_1Qy-NK0pfXIyRaY Message-ID: Subject: Re: pf performance? From: Adrian Chadd To: Erich Weiler Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Kajetan Staszkiewicz , freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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, 25 Apr 2013 18:31:54 -0000 ... please ask the pfsense guys to either migrate to -9, or backport the -head pf (with the locking fixes!) to -8 for that. Otherwise you're very likely going to be wasting time on something you can't really push that much harder. ADrian On 25 April 2013 11:24, Erich Weiler wrote: >> As far as I understand, processing of packets by pf takes place in >> receiving >> network card's interrupt handler even up to sending the packet via another >> network card (at least in my case, when using route-to targets, which make >> routing inside pf). > > > That's interesting. So even though pf is giant locked, you can still scale > the maximum capacity of your firewall, in this case, simply by adding more > CPU cores? To handle the extra interrupts? So more cores = more packets > per second, if you give each extra core an additional interrupt queue? > > >> How do you count the 140kpps value? One interface, both, in, out? I'd like >> to >> relate this somehow to my values. > > > Well, generally we see 80kpps rx and 40kpps tx. But I have seen the rx > spike to 150kpps occasionally. This is a pfSense box, which includes RRD > graphs of packet rates, that's how I'm getting the number. I'm not sure how > they are obtaining that metric under the hood. But we have not disabled HT > and some other items, so that number will change is my guess. We also may > add another CPU die to the mix to see if we can add interrupt queues to more > cores to increase performance. > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"