From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 26 10:41:51 2007 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 ED59516A420 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:41:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michael@staff.openaccess.org) Received: from smtp-out2.openaccess.org (smtp-out2.openaccess.org [66.114.32.175]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C810613C458 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:41:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michael@staff.openaccess.org) Received: from smtp-nas.openaccess.org (smtp-nas.openaccess.org [66.114.32.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.openaccess.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9DF7797A6B; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:22:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.151] (mono-sis1.s.bli.openaccess.org [66.114.32.149]) by smtp-nas.openaccess.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768FB61641F; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:22:50 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) In-Reply-To: <47722927.5000106@opengea.org> References: <4770F5BF.40100@opengea.org> <2a41acea0712260040h7ef404eby661d7eea68706209@mail.gmail.com> <47722927.5000106@opengea.org> Message-Id: <8EAFDDF1-7A7D-45C4-A25A-50A3999D9438@staff.openaccess.org> From: Michael DeMan Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:22:51 -0800 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Jordi Espasa Clofent X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Subject: Re: Maximum NIC interrupts 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: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:41:51 -0000 Hi, I think this is a really good question. I'm curious since we use a lot of stripped-down FreeBSD for modest =20 performance routers. We typically enabling our interfaces with POLLING not so much for =20 performance (it seems to be a negligible improvement nowadays) but so =20= that we know that our OSPF/BGP/SSH processes are always responsive. I'd be curious if anybody could get back on this. I've never even =20 considered things from the perspective of how many interrupts a NIC =20 could generate other than that they could always generate too many. - mike On Dec 26, 2007, at 2:12 AM, Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote: > OK, I'll try to explain in another way. > > While I've done network performance test I've monitored the IRQ =20 > rate, and, for example, it's a 7000/8000 interrupts per second in =20 > every NIC (I use 2 NICs in a bridge). The question is > > =BFhow can I know if this irq rate is too high or not? =BFhow can I =20= > know if I'm closer to device limits, or kernel limits? > > I want to say that I'm don't know if 8000 irq per second means a =20 > high IRQ use or a lower user. > > I hope I've explained better at this time. > > --=20 > Thanks, > Jordi Espasa Clofent > _______________________________________________ > 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" >