From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 1 16:04:02 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAD5C1065673 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:04:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paul@gtcomm.net) Received: from atlas.gtcomm.net (atlas.gtcomm.net [67.215.15.242]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACA68FC1A for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:04:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paul@gtcomm.net) Received: from c-76-108-179-28.hsd1.fl.comcast.net ([76.108.179.28] helo=[192.168.1.6]) by atlas.gtcomm.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KDiHP-00012S-R0; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:00:31 -0400 Message-ID: <486A55ED.2030304@gtcomm.net> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:06:05 -0400 From: Paul User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stefan Lambrev References: <4867420D.7090406@gtcomm.net> <200806301944.m5UJifJD081781@lava.sentex.ca> <20080701004346.GA3898@stlux503.dsto.defence.gov.au> <20080701010716.GF3898@stlux503.dsto.defence.gov.au> <486986D9.3000607@monkeybrains.net> <48699960.9070100@gtcomm.net> <20080701033117.GH83626@cdnetworks.co.kr> <4869ACFC.5020205@gtcomm.net> <4869B025.9080006@gtcomm.net> <4869F42E.8040904@gtcomm.net> <4869F621.4000508@moneybookers.com> In-Reply-To: <4869F621.4000508@moneybookers.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Net Subject: Re: Freebsd IP Forwarding performance (question, and some info) [7-stable, current, em, smp] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:04:03 -0000 Thanks.. I was hoping I wasn't seeing things :> I do not like inconsistencies.. :/ Stefan Lambrev wrote: > > > Greetings Paul, >> >> >> ------OK I'm stumped now.. Rebuilt with preemption and ULE and >> preemption again and it's not doing what it did before.. > I saw this in my configuration too :) Just leave your test running for > longer time and you will see this strange inconsistency in action. > In my configuration I almost always have better throughput after > reboot, which drops latter (5-10min under flood) with 50-60kpps and > after another 10-15min the number of correctly passed packet increase > again. Looks like "auto tuning" of which I'm not aware :) > >> How could that be? Now about 500kpps.. >> >> That kind of inconsistency almost invalidates all my testing.. why >> would it be so much different after trying a bunch of kernel options >> and rebooting a bunch of times and then going back to the original >> config doesn't get you what it did in the beginning.. >> >> I'll have to dig into this further.. never seen anything like it :) >> >> Hopefully the ip_input fix will help free up a few cpu cycles. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >