From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 20 15:15:11 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9F716A4CF for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:15:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from multiplay.co.uk (www1.multiplay.co.uk [212.42.16.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B7B43D39 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:15:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from vader ([212.135.219.179]) by multiplay.co.uk (multiplay.co.uk [212.42.16.7]) (MDaemon.PRO.v7.2.0.R) with ESMTP id md50000645801.msg for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:07:36 +0100 Message-ID: <00eb01c4b6b7$7a04c5a0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: "Oleg Gawriloff" , "Eric Anderson" References: <004001c4b69d$80e21f40$0c0210ac@ADMIN1><41766350.4080901@centtech.com> <006001c4b6ad$38a8cac0$0c0210ac@ADMIN1> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:14:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:07:36 +0100 (not processed: message from valid local sender) X-MDRemoteIP: 212.135.219.179 X-Return-Path: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-MDAV-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:07:37 +0100 cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: decreasing interrupt CPU load X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:15:12 -0000 I can confirm 82558 using fxp is very good especially with link0. Using polling an em based card in the same machine ( dual PIII 800Mhz ) will out perform the fxp but only just 16MB/s vs 12MB/s. Without polling the em is significantly slower than the fxp which appears to be mainly due to interrupt load. Note: test results from a single transfer using ftp from a win32 P2.4Ghz connected directly via Intel(R) PRO/1000. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Oleg Gawriloff" > EA> I've had really great performance with the em NICs, and bad experiences > EA> with bge's (the hardware is flaky). > OK, we'll try. Is there any problems with any of supported chipsets in > em-driver with polling? There many negative answer about polling support in > fxp on 82550, and good answers about 82558 and 82559 with fxp-driver. > EA> Also - it's possible that your bus is the bottleneck - depending on how > EA> many NICs you have, the type of bus, and the motherboard. > Intel SCB2, integrated NIC on PCI 33Mhz bus. We use only one NIC, with five > 802.1q vlan sub-interfaces configured. Is there any ideas how can I diagnose > bottlenecks on bus? ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.