From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 30 20:54:50 2012 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 150D7106566B; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:54:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from luigi@onelab2.iet.unipi.it) Received: from onelab2.iet.unipi.it (onelab2.iet.unipi.it [131.114.59.238]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C41D68FC17; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:54:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by onelab2.iet.unipi.it (Postfix, from userid 275) id 444A07300B; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:14:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:14:09 +0200 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Adam Vande More Message-ID: <20120830211409.GC97191@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> References: <1865271844.20120829131610@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1807373989.20120829223125@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20120830152726.A33776@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <534292400.20120830131158@serebryakov.spb.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, lev@freebsd.org, Ian Smith Subject: Re: Bad routing performance on 500Mhz Geode LX with CURRENT, ipfw and mpd5 (was: ipfw, "ip|all" proto and PPPoE -- does PPPoE packets passed to ipfw?) 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: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:54:50 -0000 On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 03:32:25PM -0500, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > > > Hello, Ian. > > You wrote 30 ??????? 2012 ?., 10:23:56: > > > > >> Yep, I'll collapse my two-rule chains in one rule. > > IS> I guess if the issue persists, we may need to see more of your ruleset. > > Not a problem at all, here it is: > > http://lev.serebryakov.spb.ru/_sklad/firewall.ipfw > > > > IS> Hmm, you shouldn't see ANY pppoe traffic on ng0, only on the interface > > IS> mpd5 uses to connect with your DSL modem/bridge. Nor would you expect > > Yep. I didn't see it. My question is, really: why vr1 (my physical > > interface, used to connect to my ISP) takes 50%+ of CPU when traffic > > is only 40mbit/s down and about 20mbit/s up (with many connections)? > > > Have you taken this into account from vr(4)? I was indeed going to mention something like this. Old/slow machines often have very low memory bandwidth, so the rule 1GHz<->1 Gbit/s does not really apply. cheers luigi > BUGS > The vr driver always copies transmit mbuf chains into longword-aligned > buffers prior to transmission in order to pacify the Rhine chips. If > buffers are not aligned correctly, the chip will round the supplied > buffer address and begin DMAing from the wrong location. This buffer > copying impairs transmit performance on slower systems but cannot be > avoided. On faster machines (e.g. a Pentium II), the performance > impact > is much less noticeable. > -- > Adam Vande More > _______________________________________________ > 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"