From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 25 13:09:08 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1D0216A41F for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 13:09:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dom@helenmarks.co.uk) Received: from mail.goodforbusiness.co.uk (mail.goodforbusiness.co.uk [81.19.179.90]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8902E13C455 for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 13:09:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dom@helenmarks.co.uk) Received: from latham.london.helenmarks.co.uk (unknown [192.168.100.1]) by mail.goodforbusiness.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01DB91148B; Fri, 25 May 2007 13:51:47 +0100 (BST) Received: by latham.london.helenmarks.co.uk (Postfix, from userid 80) id D9B36E140C; Fri, 25 May 2007 13:51:46 +0100 (BST) Received: from 195.12.22.194 (SquirrelMail authenticated user dom@helenmarks.co.uk) by mail.helenmarks.co.uk with HTTP; Fri, 25 May 2007 13:51:46 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4643.195.12.22.194.1180097506.squirrel@mail.helenmarks.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4656D0FB.5070200@seclark.us> References: <4656D0FB.5070200@seclark.us> Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:51:46 +0100 (BST) From: "Dominic Marks" To: Stephen.Clark@seclark.us MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: network performance 6.1 stable vs 4.9 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:09:08 -0000 Stephen Clark wrote: > Hello List, > > We have a network appliance that is currently based on 4.9. We are in > the process of releasing > a new version based on 6.1 stable. You are going to get asked this, so I'll ask first. Whats the reason behind not running a more recent STABLE? I understand developing a product on a moving platform is not ideal, but its going to be mentioned! > In our testing using nttcp thru the appliance we see insignifant > difference in thruput between the 2 > versions in a controlled environment - aproximately 94mbs on a 100mb lan. > > We have a person that is testing the both system inhouse surfing out > over the internet on our T1 > link and he complains that he is consistently seeing the 6.1 version > being much slower than the > 4.9 version (on the same hardware). > He has been comparing the 6.1 system to 4.9 system for a couple of weeks > and continues to insist the 6.1 version is much slower. You don't mention what the appliance actually does beyond just moving packets about? Surfing implies some sort of proxy or gateway device? > Are there any sysctl tunables that may affect performance going over the > internet > with a slower link, dropped packets, etc that could cause this? > > Any ideas would be appreciated. > Dominic