From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 6 02:53:27 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F51E16A402 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 02:53:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from justin@sk1llz.net) Received: from sed.awknet.com (sed.awknet.com [66.152.175.11]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77BBC13C4AC for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 02:53:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from justin@sk1llz.net) Received: by sed.awknet.com (Postfix, from userid 58) id 4F63A10BBE57; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:53:27 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on sed.awknet.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from [192.168.1.101] (cpe-76-167-105-254.socal.res.rr.com [76.167.105.254]) by sed.awknet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B641310BBCF9; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:53:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <45C7ED9E.1080109@sk1llz.net> Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:53:18 -0800 From: Justin Robertson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Tancsa , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <45C7A9BD.30403@sk1llz.net> <5pkfs2pfv5sjhiiaegg3bae6casglevhpt@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <5pkfs2pfv5sjhiiaegg3bae6casglevhpt@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: 6.x, 4.x ipfw/dummynet pf/altq - network performance issues X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:53:27 -0000 I've actually already done everything you've suggested with little or no impact at all. One point where we have different results is with ADAPTIVE_GIANT, I actually noticed a drop of about 50kpps thruput when disabling it. Mike Tancsa wrote: > On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:03:41 -0800, in sentex.lists.freebsd.questions > you wrote: > > >> I suppose my concerns are two-fold. Why is 6.x collapsing under traffic >> that 4.11 could easily block and run merrily along with, and is there a >> queueing mechanism in place that doesn't tie up the box so much on >> inbound flows that it ignores all other relevant traffic? >> >> (as a note, all tests were done with device polling enabled. Without it >> systems fall over pretty quickly. I also tried tests using 3com cards >> and had the same results) >> > > > On the 6.x box, try enabling adding to /etc/sysctl.conf > > kern.polling.enable=1 > net.inet.ip.fastforwarding=1 > kern.polling.idle_poll=1 > kern.random.sys.harvest.ethernet=0 > > and in /boot/loader.conf, add > > kern.hz="2000" > > Also removing > > options ADAPTIVE_GIANT # Giant mutex is adaptive. > > from the kernel helps a bit as well. > > with > kern.polling.idle_poll=1 > > your load avg will be messed up but it should help performance a bit. > > As for firewall rules, things really seem to fall down performance > wise, as compared to RELENG_4. I havent found a way to improve that > performance.... However, on the plus side, an extra core does seem to > help a bit with the box remaining responsive. For NICs, stay with em > or bge nics for now in RELENG_6 > > I have some misc test results at http://www.tancsa.com/blast.html > > ---Mike > -------------------------------------------------------- > Mike Tancsa, Sentex communications http://www.sentex.net > Providing Internet Access since 1994 > mike@sentex.net, (http://www.tancsa.com) > >