From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 5 17:35:46 2007 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 226C616A478 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2007 17:35:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from outM.internet-mail-service.net (outM.internet-mail-service.net [216.240.47.236]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED74713C4C1 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2007 17:35:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from mx0.idiom.com (HELO idiom.com) (216.240.32.160) by out.internet-mail-service.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:35:44 -0700 X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (nat.ironport.com [63.251.108.100]) by idiom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AED91265D0; Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <470675F4.7030502@elischer.org> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:35:48 -0700 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Artyom Viklenko References: <4703F9C3.2060601@net.utcluj.ro> <4532.192.168.2.137.1191451931.squirrel@www.codeangels.com> <470535D6.7020601@net.utcluj.ro> <4705C035.1020403@aws-net.org.ua> In-Reply-To: <4705C035.1020403@aws-net.org.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: lists@codeangels.com, Cristian KLEIN , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD as a gigabit router X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:35:46 -0000 Artyom Viklenko wrote: > Cristian KLEIN wrote: >> Thank you all for your replies. >> >> Kirill Ponazdyr wrote: >>>> Hi list, >>>> >>>> A few days ago I tested whether a FreeBSD 7 box is able to handle >>>> Gigabit >>>> Can anybody point me what the bottleneck of this configuration is? >>>> CPU was >>>> mostly idle and PCIe 1x should carry way more. Or is the experiment >>>> perhaps >>>> fundamentally flawed? >>> ICMP is not a good way to perform such tests as many have mentioned, >>> better use iperf. >> >> I used this test, because it proved perfect when, almost a decade ago, >> gigabit >> appeared. There wasn't anything at that time that could fill 1 Gbps, >> so we used >> the routers themselves to do the job. Also, I used this setup to avoid >> TCPs >> congestion control mecachnism and sub-maximum bandwidth. >> >> Of course, when I said "ping -f", I didn't mean a single "ping -f", >> but rather >> enough ping -f so that the looping packets would saturate the link. > > You can use option -i instead of -f: > > ping -nqs 1472 -i 0.00001 1.2.3.4 > > will generate large enougth amount of 1500 bytes packets. > Even more, use size more than 1472 and number of packets > will be increased. Value of -i parameter can be increased too. > > But remember about sysctl variable net.inet.ip.maxfragsperpacket. > By default, in FreeBSD 6.x it's value is 16. > >> >>> We have a FreeBSD 6.2 / pf box handling 2Gbps of traffic, real >>> traffic, it >>> will probably handle more, we just had no capacities or need to test. >>> >>> Hardware is a Single 2.4 Ghz Xeon with 2 x Intel Quad Pro 1000MT PCI-X >>> Controllers on separate PCI-X Busses. >> >> Could you tell me, is there any difference between 1000PT and 1000MT, >> except the >> slot type? Also, is there any difference between Intel Desktop and >> Intel Server >> adaptors, or are these just marketing buzzwords? >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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" > > you can use the netgraph source node that is an in-kernel packet source.