From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 29 22:00:11 2003 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 3327537B401 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:00:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from platon.gneto.com (as6-1-5.kr.m.bonet.se [217.215.84.52]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3604843FE5 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:00:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from martin@mullet.se) Received: from mullet.se (unknown [192.168.2.127]) by platon.gneto.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDCA24AB3; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 07:00:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3EFFC3D5.7070605@mullet.se> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 07:00:05 +0200 From: Martin Nilsson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507 X-Accept-Language: sv, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Gilbert References: <20030628190036.0E06B37B405@hub.freebsd.org> <000f01c33dad$1595a0f0$e602a8c0@flatline> <16126.9805.829406.368426@canoe.velocet.net> <000901c33dd1$12268780$0200000a@fireball> <16126.19861.842507.318997@canoe.velocet.net> <001f01c33e0f$1f4716d0$0200000a@fireball> <16127.2826.306427.946086@canoe.velocet.net> In-Reply-To: <16127.2826.306427.946086@canoe.velocet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tuning Gigabit 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: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:00:11 -0000 David Gilbert wrote: > Well... I don't have any disk controllers to test, but I've verified > this behaviour with em, bge, sk, and nge chipsets. Of these, as I've > said before, the em shines. =20 I have made some simple speed testing of gigabit NICs too. My results=20 are that Linux 2.4.18+ is usually faster and have much lower CPU load=20 than FreeBSD 4.8. I have tested the following NIC:s em (1000/XT,Anvik),=20 nge(32/33), bge (Altima 1002), ti (Netgear GA620T). For FreeBSD I've found that use nothing beats the ti with its special=20 firmware. > The bge has good performance, too ... but > we've seen a lot of corrupted routed packets ... it has some > interaction with some motherboard chipsets. The VIA chipsets often have very poor PCI bus performance if you don't=20 load the 4 in 1 drivers (windows only). The max PCI speed I've been able = to get with (semi old ~1.5years) VIA chipsets are about 70MB/s measured=20 with a SCSI disk array on a 32/33 bus. The intel, SiS and serverworks=20 chipsets perform as expected, I haven't tested any Nvida boards. > It's in the back of my mind. I don't think I'll have time for this > BSDCon, but maybe soon thereafter. It's getting to the point where we > should have a BSD Journal. I would be interested in helping to test this, I have a bunch of lab=20 boxes with 64/66PCI or PCI-X slots and NICs to work with. I'm able to=20 get access to most new motherboards and chipsets to test chipset=20 specific performance. What I need is someone to help me develop useful=20 things to test, validate results and to check testing methodology. /Martin --=20 Martin Nilsson M.Sc CS&E, CTO Mullet Scandinavia AB, Malm=F6, SWEDEN E-mail: martin@mullet.se, Phone: +46-(0)708-606170, Web: www.mullet.se Our business is well enigineered servers optimised for FreeBSD & Linux