From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 7 11:24:23 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582041065672 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 11:24:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from uqs@spoerlein.net) Received: from acme.spoerlein.net (acme.spoerlein.net [IPv6:2001:470:9a47::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE008FC08 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 11:24:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from acme.spoerlein.net (localhost.spoerlein.net [IPv6:::1]) by acme.spoerlein.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oA7BOLCZ091628 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 7 Nov 2010 12:24:22 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from uqs@spoerlein.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=spoerlein.net; s=dkim200908; t=1289129062; bh=kOi67nbyarH7ilXiBCqvt2uFZdlhQyv5F/XG3f4Xhjo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:In-Reply-To; b=cG0RjPrBmLRoO+HlkBLsDTzVq7RAzfLUSY7B77oG64SoZiWL6seKX1V4jABvA/mpD MDccx3pG85IAIudltpnTc+haurBfsqs1dvV8nAgpak7hGxorL3kCldEHDNg69KZ3a3 1ampcwQGwT4nNxdQ+MZ6ucm1+POm0YGOSJpWoQhk= Received: (from uqs@localhost) by acme.spoerlein.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id oA7BOLcO091627; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 12:24:21 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from uqs@spoerlein.net) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 12:24:21 +0100 From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= To: Pyun YongHyeon Message-ID: <20101107112421.GH85693@acme.spoerlein.net> Mail-Followup-To: Pyun YongHyeon , stable@freebsd.org References: <20101106093700.GW85693@acme.spoerlein.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Abysmal re(4) performance under 8.1-STABLE (mid-August) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 11:24:23 -0000 On Sat, 06.11.2010 at 23:19:33 -0700, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: > > Hello Pyun, > > > > On this new server, I cannot get more than ~280kByte/s up/downstream out of > > re(4) without any tweaking. > > > > re0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 > >        options=389b > >        ether 00:21:85:63:74:34 > >        inet6 fe80::221:85ff:fe63:7434%re0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 > >        inet 46.4.12.147 netmask 0xffffffc0 broadcast 46.4.12.191 > >        nd6 options=3 > >        media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX ) > >        status: active > > > > It seems the link was resolved to half-duplex. Does link partner > also agree on the resolved speed/duplex? As this is a dedicated server in a colo hundreds of km away, I have no means to check this easily. Especially I cannot change the setting from auto-neg. Btw, linux will show a negotiated 100/full link via mii-tool. > > # ifconfig re0 > > re0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 > >        options=88 > >        ether 00:21:85:63:74:34 > >        inet6 fe80::221:85ff:fe63:7434%re0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 > >        inet 46.4.12.147 netmask 0xffffffc0 broadcast 46.4.12.191 > >        nd6 options=3 > >        media: Ethernet 100baseTX (100baseTX ) > >        status: active > > > > This time, it seems you used forced media configuration > instead of auto. It still shows duplex mismatch so it's > normal to see poor performance. What makes me wonder > is why you have duplex mismatch? > Did you use forced media configuration on link partner? > What happens when you use different switch? Sadly, none of these options are available to me :/ But even 100/half should give more than enough performance, right? Uli