From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 6 14:08:39 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 65D2916A401 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:08:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost2.sentex.ca (smarthost2.sentex.ca [205.211.164.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3041B13C442 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:08:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by smarthost2.sentex.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l16E8cQo029657; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:08:38 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from mdt-xp.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.13.6/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l16E8cU1042825 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:08:38 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <200702061408.l16E8cU1042825@lava.sentex.ca> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:08:45 -0500 To: Chris , "Justin Robertson" From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <3aaaa3a0702060503j12304748y89ef16cd41ddcbc8@mail.gmail.com > References: <45C7A9BD.30403@sk1llz.net> <5pkfs2pfv5sjhiiaegg3bae6casglevhpt@4ax.com> <45C7ED9E.1080109@sk1llz.net> <3aaaa3a0702060503j12304748y89ef16cd41ddcbc8@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org 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 14:08:39 -0000 At 08:03 AM 2/6/2007, Chris wrote: >On 06/02/07, Justin Robertson wrote: >> >>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. >> >Hmm I am surprised not more attention has been brought by your >observations, I have noticed myself freebsd 4.x holds up much better >during ddos then 5.x and 6.x probably due its better robustness and >lighter code. When I ran through the tests with pmc compiled in there wasnt any obvious areas where it was spending a lot of time. What I was told was that the locking overhead was a big penalty and more emphasis was put on correctness than speed going from RELENG_4 to RELENG_5 and above. Supposedly the payoff will come as more CPU cores get added as there is better potential to scale with this design. While I did see some improvement in the box with SMP compiled in, it still has a ways to go for this application >I do hope but will probably be dissapointed stability and robustness >is on the todo list for the devs in aiming to get 6.x to where 4.x >was. I have found stability to be quite good. But certainly as a firewall or router, the speed is not there yet. ---Mike