From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Mon Aug 26 17:15:25 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954CCE0D08 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 17:15:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46HJY83qvyz4gL1 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 17:15:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (eg.sd.rdtc.ru [IPv6:2a03:3100:c:13:0:0:0:5]) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x7QHFGMl038833 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 26 Aug 2019 17:15:18 GMT (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: vit@otcnet.ru Received: from [10.58.0.4] ([10.58.0.4]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x7QHF7M1078165 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 Aug 2019 00:15:07 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: finding optimal ipfw strategy To: Victor Gamov , freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <4ff39c8f-341c-5d72-1b26-6558c57bff8d@grosbein.net> From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 00:15:01 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOCAL_FROM, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -2.3 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record * 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record * 2.6 LOCAL_FROM From my domains X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46HJY83qvyz4gL1 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=permerror (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of eugen@grosbein.net uses mechanism not recognized by this client) smtp.mailfrom=eugen@grosbein.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.48 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[grosbein.net]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_PERMFAIL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.98)[-0.979,0]; IP_SCORE(-1.40)[ip: (-3.24), ipnet: 2a01:4f8::/29(-1.96), asn: 24940(-1.79), country: DE(-0.01)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:2a01:4f8::/29, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 17:15:25 -0000 26.08.2019 23:25, Victor Gamov wrote: > More general question about my current config. I have about 200Mbit input multicasts which bridged and filtered later (about 380 Mbit bridged if trafshow does not lie me :-) ) Don't trust trafshow. Use: systat -ifstat 1 > My FreeBSD box (12.0-STABLE r348449 GENERIC amd64) has one "Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31270 @ 3.40GHz" and 4-ports "Intel(R) PRO/1000 PCI-Express Network Driver". HT disabled and traffic mainly income via igb0 and out both via igb0 and igb2. About 30 VLANs now active some at igb0 and some at igb2. > > > And I have following `top` stat: > ===== > CPU 0: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 80.5% system, 0.0% interrupt, 19.5% idle > CPU 1: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 34.1% system, 0.0% interrupt, 65.9% idle > CPU 2: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 17.1% system, 0.0% interrupt, 82.9% idle > CPU 3: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 46.3% system, 0.0% interrupt, 53.7% idle > ===== > > Also `vmstat -i |grep igb`: > ===== > irq264: igb0:rxq0 9310734762 5471 > irq265: igb0:rxq1 10186691956 5985 > irq266: igb0:rxq2 8190475727 4812 > irq267: igb0:rxq3 10063786697 5913 > irq268: igb0:aq 34 0 > irq273: igb1:aq 1 0 > irq274: igb2:rxq0 11010248236 6469 > irq275: igb2:rxq1 10843712062 6371 > irq276: igb2:rxq2 8810194905 5177 > irq277: igb2:rxq3 10975949272 6449 > irq278: igb2:aq 10 0 > irq283: igb3:aq 1 0 > ===== > > > Is it possible to get CPU load about 30% at this config after ipfw optimization? Or may be main bottleneck is not ipfw-specific? You won't know until you try and nobody can tell. Too many variables. And you better compare it with 11.3 because 12.0 may have some unsolved preformance regressions.