Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:18:11 -0400 From: David Gilbert <dgilbert@dclg.ca> To: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Cc: David Gilbert <dgilbert@dclg.ca> Subject: Re: Packet passing performance study on exotic hardware. Message-ID: <16742.48579.673252.78665@canoe.dclg.ca> In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20041008120745.106ae7b0@64.7.153.2> References: <16742.40802.187425.402461@canoe.dclg.ca> <6.1.2.0.0.20041008120745.106ae7b0@64.7.153.2>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> writes: Mike> At 10:08 AM 08/10/2004, David Gilbert wrote: >> Right out of the box, FreeBSD 5.3 (with polling) passed about 200 >> kpps. net.isr.enable=1 increased that without polling to about 220 Mike> Did you have kern.polling.idle_poll at 0 or 1 ? In my tests a Mike> few weeks ago this seemed to make a difference, but the load avg Mike> gets messed up. Also, HZ does seem to make a difference at Mike> least in my tests on BETA5. I can confirm the HZ not making a sizable difference (although I believe it cuts polling latency under ligher load, so we used 10000 by default and we tested 1000). Idle_poll is default 1, I'm not positive we tested 0. I don't think there is much idle time here. Dave. -- ============================================================================ |David Gilbert, Independent Contractor. | Two things can only be | |Mail: dave@daveg.ca | equal if and only if they | |http://daveg.ca | are precisely opposite. | =========================================================GLO================
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16742.48579.673252.78665>