Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:38:35 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: "Jack Vogel" <jfvogel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Intel EM tuning (PT1000 adaptors) Message-ID: <200701302240.l0UMe1BS003641@lava.sentex.ca> In-Reply-To: <2a41acea0701300930u4f920b95n61d20972c14576a9@mail.gmail.co m> References: <200701301719.l0UHJ1Kk002345@lava.sentex.ca> <2a41acea0701300930u4f920b95n61d20972c14576a9@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:30 PM 1/30/2007, Jack Vogel wrote:
>Performance tuning is not something that I have yet had time to focus
>on, our Linux team is able to do a lot more of that. Just at a glance,
>try increasing your mbuf pool size and the number of receive descriptors
>for a start.
OK, I setup a test box the pass packets through and I am getting
results I dont understand. Increasing hw.em.rxd in loader.conf (and
rebooting each time), I am getting worse results.
With hw.em.rxd=4096
Jan 30 17:19:10 em-test kernel: em0: Receive No Buffers = 5707564
With hw.em.rxd=1024
Jan 30 17:22:31 em-test kernel: em0: Receive No Buffers = 351
With hw.em.rxd=512
Jan 30 17:27:24 em-test kernel: em0: Receive No Buffers = 230
with default 256
Jan 30 16:55:44 em-test kernel: em0: Receive No Buffers = 77
with 128, its gets much worse. This is with a stock UP kernel, no
INET6, net.inet.ip.fastforwarding=1
Box A ------Box B (with dual Intel NIC) ----- Box C
Box A is generating packets routed through firewall Box B towards Box
C. They are connected together with 2 cross over cables.
>Oh, and try increasing your processing limit to 200 and see
>what effect that has.
I will try that next.
---Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200701302240.l0UMe1BS003641>