From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 20:16:19 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78D9516A407 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:16:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1.sentex.ca [64.7.153.18]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC4B43D60; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:16:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9CKG0rN060904; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:16:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from mdt-xp.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.13.6/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k9CKFxU6041929 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:15:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20061012160920.12a780d8@sentex.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:14:00 -0400 To: Danny Braniss From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.3, clamav-milter version 0.88.3 on clamscanner2 X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, feebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em blues 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, 12 Oct 2006 20:16:19 -0000 At 10:34 AM 10/12/2006, Danny Braniss wrote: > > >short version: > > >the point im trying to make, is that the same setup, where I only change > > >the release, is going downhill - with this particular MB. > > > > But its not the same necessarily. Some of the settings are different. > > For example, disable net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable on 6.x if you want > > it to be the same setting as on 4. This kicks in when the hosts are > > not directly connected and can hamper performance. > >I assume that by directly connected you mean not connected via WAN, >and so, yes these hosts are on the same vlan, and no, > net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable=1/0 >make no difference By directly connected, I mean on the same subnet. Whether the underlying transport is over a WAN doesnt matter, as long as the two devices are on the same subnet is what counts. Just to rule out issues like duplex setting bugs, I would try the two boxes back to back and make sure its the same subpar performance. ---Mike