From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 25 19:04:39 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 51CEAEE0 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:04:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from weiler@soe.ucsc.edu) Received: from mail-pd0-f177.google.com (mail-pd0-f177.google.com [209.85.192.177]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2899A14E8 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:04:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id p11so1996806pdj.36 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:04:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ucsc.edu; s=ucsc-google; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GhI1+QeLL29KBJHu4mc+C6r6v5MC8Ef3smaU9XrJSm0=; b=Bt7lTZFQcKaTQv1VsXnNWMTTpdnycqA6ZYwZUif1z6MbeQXZkVADr22375+dDzmCGp wwSO02mmoqdJxwUd/R3lo23img154Z0eA4QS1pvKzPStvlCvW11QQ3srVyG1kuDPTmxu 9T854KP5kKgK/9yFzxLnKV5RaCAIay3QSvW/A= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=GhI1+QeLL29KBJHu4mc+C6r6v5MC8Ef3smaU9XrJSm0=; b=ICaasKy4YrqIgAMKF87HlnbxBv3TluKAow8+p+t7diKWNMhU0vWnzwxtJUIEBziiV8 /pJml4aHyDHjhi3xvSJfgq16nSJ/KXvFGWR07/BLQyxNkg9JJxma9fT+S1ICzIA3Kxad 4LN3UIItdUtd8D/HBpbxgqpEUbii6piBA7hkcZY0BGoT4kg0Bp+XP8hCJxLwOwm1YdEF DfWayZRnT7i7Vu4YnSluzDrh54af0Xa5lUhHHa3CvEm9BphUgMJ6ygWRKHt0w/0t90Rj ItI5HNV9mupYEl0Bw7wAbGn7K4s3ZGOZ/E647kYhx+g1MyXdoYzJN643yqEDRklqiDNv ynNw== X-Received: by 10.66.145.134 with SMTP id su6mr26237489pab.198.1366916673840; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.30.0.50] (hgfw-01.soe.ucsc.edu. [128.114.61.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id vv6sm9279258pab.6.2013.04.25.12.04.32 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51797E3F.1030400@soe.ucsc.edu> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:04:31 -0700 From: Erich Weiler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.6esrpre) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/10.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Chadd Subject: Re: pf performance? References: <5176E5C1.9090601@soe.ucsc.edu> <201304240134.22740.vegeta@tuxpowered.net> <517974DA.5090809@soe.ucsc.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnPV2RG4Oy78N5gSNiuMbZfj9pTOtP96+kKmAk5l2+4tywCfeNNaQGLpsbC4Oybc15uihic Cc: 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 19:04:39 -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. I can ask for that (and will soon, likely), but to play with my current setup in the meantime, can we logically say that if I have 4 cores, and one interrupt queue is assigned to each core, and under I load I see each core (via "top -P") at 100% in interrupt usage, would it be safe to say that more cores (with additional interrupt queues accordingly) would mean more interrupts overall being processed, which would mean more pps?