From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 23 07:48:23 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5A516A4CE; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:48:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0.dmpriest.net.uk (mx0.dmpriest.net.uk [62.13.128.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08AC343D3F; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:48:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kpielorz@tdx.co.uk) Received: from raptor (kpielorz.dmpriest.net.uk [62.13.130.13]) by mx0.dmpriest.net.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6/Kp) with ESMTP id i0NFmHh01707; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:48:17 GMT Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:48:23 +0000 From: Karl Pielorz To: Robert Watson Message-ID: <12844453.1074872903@raptor> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD tunnels / performance et'al (gif/tun etc.) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:48:23 -0000 --On 20 January 2004 21:40 -0500 Robert Watson wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Karl Pielorz wrote: > >> I've just setup a FreeBSD tunnel (we've tried both gif and tun [via >> nos-tun]) now between two fairly large networks of machines... > > What version of FreeBSD are you using? If using FreeBSD 5.x, you may well > want to switch to 4.x for at least one more minor version, as interrupt > latency hasn't been optimized in 5.x yet since the move to interrupt > threads, and the network stack also runs with Giant in 5.2 out of the > box. I wouldn't think this would hurt you as much as seen below, but > it's worth keeping in mind. > > Also, I would generally expect gif, gre, et al, to be faster than > tun-based tunneling, as they avoid the trip through userspace, which > involves a number of packet copies. We're already using 4.9. I also take your point about gif being quicker than switching to user space and back (And, in testing - tun was indeed even slower than gif). In the end we fixed this problem by putting stupidly fast machines at each end (i.e. P4 2.6Ghz) - we also made some tweaks to the tcp sysctls (such as disabling delayed acks, and closing the window size down) - which also seemed to help. I'm just wondering if it was something 'weird' such as the delay over the tunnel being on average 'just the right delay time' to cause problems that you wouldn't get on a LAN or something? :) Regards, -Karl