From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 27 19:03:40 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B79816A4CE for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:03:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from clunix.cl.msu.edu (clunix.cl.msu.edu [35.9.2.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8C043D2D for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:03:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jerrymc@clunix.cl.msu.edu) Received: (from jerrymc@localhost) by clunix.cl.msu.edu (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) id i8RJ3Yp06317; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:03:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Jerry McAllister Message-Id: <200409271903.i8RJ3Yp06317@clunix.cl.msu.edu> To: TM4525@aol.com Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:03:32 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <1c1.1edea0e4.2e89b8f6@aol.com> from "TM4525@aol.com" at Sep 27, 2004 02:41:58 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org cc: mike@sentex.net Subject: Re: Device polling performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:03:40 -0000 > > In a message dated 9/25/04 4:12:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mike@sentex.net > writes: > >FreeBSD team for developing a stack that uses no resources. > > .... For the record, what I was saying was that a decent machine (e.g. 2.4 > PIV) should be able to push 200,000 packets per second with decent NICs > (em, or fxp) and with a median packet size (see www.caida.org) of about 540 > bytes, that works out to ~ 100Mb/s. > No you didn't, you said that 200Kpps would show almost no cpu usage, which > is utterly ridiculous. > > Mike at sentex.net previously wrote: > > "Given a decent CPU, you wont see very much of a load average at all in the > 200Kpps / 100Mb range." Note that load average and CPU usage are two intirely different things. You could have a huge amount of CPU usage with a load average hovering around zero and somewhat vice versa too - eg high load average without a great deal of CPU usage - though that would be less common. ////jerry