From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 25 15:01:36 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 571AB16A46C for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 15:01:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@jellydonut.org) Received: from mail2.secureworks.net (mail2.secureworks.net [65.114.32.154]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E86313C465 for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 15:01:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@jellydonut.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.secureworks.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81AA5171FC; Fri, 25 May 2007 11:01:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at secureworks.net Received: from mail2.secureworks.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.secureworks.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XXzFa7ZK8G8A; Fri, 25 May 2007 11:01:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from descartes.internal.secureworks.net (mole1.secureworks.net [63.239.86.3]) by mail2.secureworks.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45634171B9; Fri, 25 May 2007 11:01:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4656FA4F.9040008@jellydonut.org> Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 11:01:35 -0400 From: Michael Proto User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070523 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen.Clark@seclark.us References: <4656D0FB.5070200@seclark.us> <4643.195.12.22.194.1180097506.squirrel@mail.helenmarks.co.uk> <4656F863.20302@seclark.us> In-Reply-To: <4656F863.20302@seclark.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 15:01:36 -0000 Stephen Clark wrote: > Dominic Marks wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >> > Hi Dominic, > > The appliance is basically a firewall/nat/vpn device. We started on 6.1 > last year and it has > taken us a while to get things tested, plus I don't like to use a brand > new release. If we go to > a later release it means we have to do complete regression testing, etc. > > We are basically using a GENERIC config for our kernel. We, meaning the > R&D team don't see any > performance issues in a controlled environment - 6.1 performs just as > well as 4.9. > > In subjective tests R&D has done using the following setup we see "no" > problem: > > freebsd+firefox <--100mbs lan---> 6.1 network appliance <----T1 > link----> internet > freebsd+firefox <--100mbs lan---> 4.9 network appliance <----T1 > link----> internet > > One of our testers has the same setup but is using winblows/ie in place of > freebsd+firefox and subjectively says the 6.1 system is slower than the > 4.9 system. > > I was just wandering if there were any tunables that might cause this. > > Thanks, > Steve > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/configtuning-kernel-limits.html The section on TCP Bandwidth Delay Product might be of a little assistance. -Proto