From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 3 17:17:04 2008 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 51CD910656D4 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:17:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from if@xip.at) Received: from chile.gbit.at (ns1.xip.at [193.239.188.99]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49B48FC24 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:17:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from if@xip.at) Received: (qmail 1725 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2008 19:17:01 +0200 Received: from unknown (HELO filebunker.xip.at) (86.59.10.180) by chile.gbit.at with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 3 Jul 2008 19:17:01 +0200 Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:17:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Flaschberger To: Steve Bertrand In-Reply-To: <486D011A.7080406@ibctech.ca> Message-ID: References: <4867420D.7090406@gtcomm.net> <20080701004346.GA3898@stlux503.dsto.defence.gov.au> <20080701010716.GF3898@stlux503.dsto.defence.gov.au> <486986D9.3000607@monkeybrains.net> <48699960.9070100@gtcomm.net> <20080701033117.GH83626@cdnetworks.co.kr> <4869ACFC.5020205@gtcomm.net> <4869B025.9080006@gtcomm.net> <486A7E45.3030902@gtcomm.net> <486A8F24.5010000@gtcomm.net> <486A9A0E.6060308@elischer.org> <486B41D5.3060609@gtcomm.net> <486C7611.9030905@gtcomm.net> <486CCB6A.6070104@ibctech.ca> <486D011A.7080406@ibctech.ca> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: FreeBSD Net , Paul Subject: Re: Freebsd IP Forwarding performance (question, and some info) [7-stable, current, em, smp] 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: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:17:04 -0000 Dear Steve, >>>> My next "router" appliance will be: >>>> http://www.axiomtek.com.tw/products/ViewProduct.asp?view=429 >>> >>> This is exactly the device that I have been testing with (just rebranded). >> >> cool. >> what performace do you reach? > > After some very quick testing with everything default, I am witnessing > results that are far below what I would have expected. I have a few > questions: > > - how do I identify if polling on an interface is enabled? I see no > difference with ifconfig output em0: flags=8843 mtu 1500 options=5b <--- ether 00:90:0b:08:d7:90 media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseTX ) status: active kern.polling.reg_frac=20 kern.polling.user_frac=20 kern.polling.burst_max=512 man polling polling does not help to get more pps, but prevent locks and preserve some %cpu for other tasks (routing daemons,..) > - do I need to compile a new kernel to be able to enable/disable polling? options DEVICE_POLLING you need this in kern-conf. > - without moving some hardware around, I only have a single box connected to > a router, and I've been testing from that box to a different interface within > the router. Will the test results be optimal if I ping all the way through > the router to a second device connected to it? use any other packet generator. linux has one in kernel, and there are moch more. (iperf,...) ping uses a lot of cpu. > - how are the results affected when generating and receiving the test packets > within the router itself (as opposed to using outside devices)? thats no real "pps" forwarding performance over the network cards. Kind regards, Ingo Flaschberger