From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 30 22:40:07 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8814C16A502 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:40:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1.sentex.ca [64.7.153.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 452A513C481 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:40:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0UMe1Q5005319; Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:40:01 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from mdt-xp.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.13.6/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l0UMe1BS003641 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:40:01 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <200701302240.l0UMe1BS003641@lava.sentex.ca> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:38:35 -0500 To: "Jack Vogel" From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <2a41acea0701300930u4f920b95n61d20972c14576a9@mail.gmail.co m> References: <200701301719.l0UHJ1Kk002345@lava.sentex.ca> <2a41acea0701300930u4f920b95n61d20972c14576a9@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.3, clamav-milter version 0.88.3 on clamscanner2 X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Intel EM tuning (PT1000 adaptors) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:40:07 -0000 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