Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:35:48 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Artyom Viklenko <artem@aws-net.org.ua> Cc: lists@codeangels.com, Cristian KLEIN <cristi@net.utcluj.ro>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD as a gigabit router Message-ID: <470675F4.7030502@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <4705C035.1020403@aws-net.org.ua> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?470675F4.7030502>