From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 29 03:07:36 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527CE16A473 for ; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:07:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chrcoluk@gmail.com) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.168]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A464F13C459 for ; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:07:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chrcoluk@gmail.com) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id a2so1848881ugf for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:07:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=oQPBRb1HMxNwKKmoMEUsLvkAUN6mYYP1am7eNZEH+PE=; b=oWXmArAuoh5hBWMbvGoRnvZrT1Bd8qAyTJAILLR6N44CdOL2pf9My+DS3mDnr0qgctoeG2GiTqQsxPFGwbj3U1R/r1P9pSo0Ac7n88mxSEuW2i20ZlNq9uLbQyk/3JPz48rVWRtxVJLyR1VC47LQxvRfnTsqP5p23aN86hH0XRA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=R0VID9qkAAVksZvGucF0nlFoT7m6OXyZXtdN9IFtONlsDSwsPHy0HEfRUcFrtpe5FQoe+8d0vmorfan/zYfpg//wsWrxiW2BBJucioVUBdOxDsYBbuUYgefbuIT/QrWP/kuK1p8WR1IR/0qczOGqwlxHJmJOtP1b0xNf9hTNAA4= Received: by 10.67.24.18 with SMTP id b18mr5873608ugj.1191035253456; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:07:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.67.20.1 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:07:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3aaaa3a0709282007s1675b714g71d025f87dd1c350@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:07:33 +0100 From: Chris To: pyunyh@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20070929012801.GA11457@cdnetworks.co.kr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3aaaa3a0709231657r3264c873ife71800731608b03@mail.gmail.com> <20070924020116.GA36909@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <3aaaa3a0709240844j2603a050nd09bb5482a0f3c21@mail.gmail.com> <20070927065155.GE3692@cdnetworks.co.kr> <3aaaa3a0709271030k24892099ra3409ce6f5f7020f@mail.gmail.com> <20070928000656.GA7119@cdnetworks.co.kr> <3aaaa3a0709281105g1503fdbcu70910de6eae060a0@mail.gmail.com> <20070929012801.GA11457@cdnetworks.co.kr> Cc: FreeBSD Stable , freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nfe driver 6.2 stable 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: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:07:36 -0000 On 29/09/2007, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 07:05:35PM +0100, Chris wrote: > > On 28/09/2007, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 06:30:20PM +0100, Chris wrote: > > > > On 27/09/2007, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 04:44:09PM +0100, Chris wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > The card is more stable when using nve driver no crashes still but the > > > > > > performance is around the same maxing out at around 200mbit. I was > > > > > > expecting nearer 400-500mbit. > > > > > > > > > > > > e1000phy0: on miibus0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There had been issues nfe(4) with 88E1116/88E1149 PHYs but your issue > > > > > seems to be different one. How about manually set media configuration? > > > > > For example, "ifconfig nfe0 media 1000baseTX mediaopt full-duplex" > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > I typod I meant to say nve was unstable and nfe has been rock solid so > > > > great work with the driver. I enabled mpsafe now and still no > > > > problems and its gave me a little more performance as well, a shame my > > > > nic has no hardware features (unusual for a gigabit nic) but overall > > > > glad its at least stable. > > > > > > > > > > How did you check network performance? > > > Maxing out at around 200Mbps seems weird. Personally, I had never seen > > > GigE hardwares that saturate at 200Mbps. One of causes I can think of > > > is speed/duplex mismatches with link partner. Manually setting > > > speed/duplex might fix your performance issue, I guess. > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Pyun YongHyeon > > > > > > > These are ftp transfers it is running on a amd62 x2 dual core > > processor and gig of ram, when at max speed cpu usage is very high in > > excess of 80% but not completely maxed out. It now seems to be able > > to sustain around 30meg/sec the highest I have seen I havent done any > > other testing so if you have a better way it would be good to know > > ftp transfers involve disk activities so you're not measuring NIC > performance. Try one of benchmark programs in ports/benchmarks > (e.g. netperf, iperf, ttcp etc). > ATM nfe(4)'s interrupt moderation mechanism doesn't seem to work > at all so nfe(4) generates too many interrupts. However I don't > think it wouldn't be major bottleneck of the performance. > > > thanks. Please bare in mind I have no local access to the server so > > crashing it eg. is expensive for as will have to pay for a kvm switch > > netstat -i indicates no collisions for a duplex mismatch so not keen > > on trying a manual negotiotian again for reasons above. So even for a > > card with no hardware features you would expect it to exceed 200mbit > > easily? > > > > Yes. You have a gigabit ethernet controller and fast CPU. > Run one of benchmark programs and get a number. > > > I havent enabled net isr setting I wonder if that will help. > > > > That wouldn't help a lot, I guess. > > > Chris > > -- > Regards, > Pyun YongHyeon > Will let you know results thanks, also will polling work on my card? Chris