From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 15 10:55:04 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EED51106564A; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:55:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ianf@cloudseed.co.za) Received: from zcs04.jnb1.cloudseed.co.za (zcs04.jnb1.cloudseed.co.za [41.154.0.161]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BD6A8FC0A; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:55:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zcs04.jnb1.cloudseed.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A232A82A64; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:54:53 +0200 (SAST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zcs04.jnb1.cloudseed.co.za Received: from zcs04.jnb1.cloudseed.co.za ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zcs04.jnb1.cloudseed.co.za [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5ybIkIWxcnTa; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:54:53 +0200 (SAST) Received: from clue.co.za (l2tp.clue.co.za [41.154.88.20]) by zcs04.jnb1.cloudseed.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 368122A82A04; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:54:53 +0200 (SAST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=clue.co.za) by clue.co.za with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1T1bFS-0000pM-Uk; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:54:50 +0200 To: lev@FreeBSD.org From: Ian FREISLICH In-Reply-To: <42630017.20120815122119@serebryakov.spb.ru> References: <42630017.20120815122119@serebryakov.spb.ru> <157941699.20120815004542@serebryakov.spb.ru> X-Attribution: BOFH Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:54:50 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:44:11 +0000 Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: CURRENT as gateway on not-so-fast hardware: where is a bottlneck? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:55:04 -0000 Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Hello, Lev. > You wrote 15 =D0=B0=D0=B2=D0=B3=D1=83=D1=81=D1=82=D0=B0 2012 =D0=B3., 0:45:= > 42: > > LS> Answer looks trivial: router CPU is bottleneck. But here is one additi= > onal > LS> detail: `top' never shows less than 50% of idle when torrents are > LS> active. And `idle' time with torrents traffic is ALWAYS is higher than > LS> without them, but with WiFi traffic. > Ok, additional information: it seems, that `top' is liar when > POLLING is enabled for em0 and vr1 NICs. I'm turned POLLING off, and > speeds are the same, but `idle' is no more 50%, it is `0%' when > gateway is overloaded. > > But i still feezes under load with ULE. It looks like ULE is broken. Are you sure it's a freeze and not a panic? I'm seeing very frequent panics on -CURRENT running as a gateway. Often, it doesn't come back without a powercycle because it's unable to complete a crashdump. Ian -- Ian Freislich