From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 25 14:10:14 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 E4A7016A400 for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 14:10:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from multiplay.co.uk (core6.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C95E13C45A for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 14:10:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.5 (2006-08-29) on core6.multiplay.co.uk X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.7 required=6.0 tests=BAYES_00, USER_IN_WHITELIST, USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO autolearn=ham version=3.1.5 Received: from r2d2 ([212.135.219.182]) by multiplay.co.uk (multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) (MDaemon PRO v9.5.4) with ESMTP id md50003856541.msg for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 14:52:17 +0100 Message-ID: <02e601c79ed3$ddf0c3a0$b6db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: , References: <4656D0FB.5070200@seclark.us> Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 14:51:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-MDRemoteIP: 212.135.219.182 X-Return-Path: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-Envelope-From: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Spam-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Fri, 25 May 2007 14:52:18 +0100 X-MDAV-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Fri, 25 May 2007 14:52:18 +0100 Cc: 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 14:10:15 -0000 Why are you releasing a new product on an already unsupported version? 6.2 is the version you really need to be moving to not 6.1. With respect to your actual question you provide no real details so there's no real answers. You need to provider info on hardware, configuration and application + concrete metrics otherwise your going to get no where. That said I'd suggest as a total and utter guess setting: net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable=0 Regards Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Clark" To: Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:05 PM Subject: network performance 6.1 stable vs 4.9 > 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. > > 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. > > 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. ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.