From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 26 22:36:25 2004 Return-Path: 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 E285816A4D0 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:36:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from web41312.mail.yahoo.com (web41312.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.61]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D448243D1D for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:36:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alohaguy123@yahoo.com) Message-ID: <20040227063625.54127.qmail@web41312.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [208.201.244.226] by web41312.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:36:25 PST Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:36:25 -0800 (PST) From: Aloha Guy To: Chris Dillon In-Reply-To: <20040226155909.E29441@duey.wolves.k12.mo.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1 cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD box as router adding latency X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 06:36:26 -0000 Chris Dillon wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Aloha Guy wrote: > > What do you have HZ set to (see sysctl kern.clockrate)? I think I > > remember your original message showing you using pipes and queues > > and the HZ setting can affect those. Also see if your latency > > improves if you remove all pipe and queue rules (other ipfw rules > > are OK). > > > Here is the HZ setting: > > kern.clockrate: { hz = 100, tick = 10000, profhz = 1024, stathz = 128 } > > I'm not sure how to remove the pipe since I don't think the pipe > works until the queue is defined. When I removed the queues that > are configured for the pipe, the latency is back to normal though. Like I said, remove both pipes and queues to test. However, pipes _can_ be used without queues, but that is irrelevant here. Try setting HZ to 1000 in your kernel config, recompile, reboot, and test again. You should see something between a slight improvement to a ten-fold improvement. Already tried that and it did improve things a little. I tried setting the HZ to 1000 and it didn't make much of a difference. Is there a larger number that actually works well? Thanks, John --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail