From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 29 18:44:38 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C1516A4D9 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:44:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mx2.nersc.gov (mx2.nersc.gov [128.55.6.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8EE43D2F for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:44:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dart@nersc.gov) Received: by mx2.nersc.gov (Postfix, from userid 4002) id DD17E7767; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:44:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nersc.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.nersc.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id A30417778; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:44:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from gemini.nersc.gov (gemini.nersc.gov [128.55.16.111]) by mx2.nersc.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0FE7767; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:44:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from gemini.nersc.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gemini.nersc.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212B2F987; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:44:28 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Andrew Seguin" In-Reply-To: Message from "Andrew Seguin" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-90732756P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:44:28 -0800 From: Eli Dart Message-Id: <20041129184428.212B2F987@gemini.nersc.gov> X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.60 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on mx2.nersc.gov cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3 Networking performance problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:44:38 -0000 --==_Exmh_-90732756P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In reply to "Andrew Seguin" : > Thank you for your reply. > > > Note that if your interface is set to full duplex and the switch is > > set to half, you'll see lousy performance and very likely see no > > errors on your side. > > I have to question though... could this explain a stable ping time of 2ms > when the load is around 2-4mbps and unstable ping times of 2ms to 2s, at > 10mbps? Hmmm....I typically see much lower throughput with a duplex mismatch (50 to 80 kbytes a second) so this may not be the problem. The things to look for in your switch and router port statistics are the speed and duplex settings (obviously) and late collisions. The presence of late collisions often point to a duplex mismatch. I would check this stuff anyway, if only to eliminate it as a variable.... If you don't have access to the router and/or switch, ask the folks who do for the output of "show interface" for whatever interfaces are connected to your firewall. --eli > > If so, I shall give it a try tomorrow. I've already ordered Intel pro nics > (which I use for all my servers on my small network at borgtech.ca with > great results in a similar but lesser bandwidth situation) and new cables (I > needed slightly longer ones anyways to put the server in it's final place > rather then it's testing spot). > > Equipment that the firewall sits between is a Cisco 2600 router (internet > side) and an HP Procurve switch facing the local LAN. > > Again thank you, > Andrew > --==_Exmh_-90732756P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFBq24MLTFEeF+CsrMRAgevAJ9XzzI4A9IxmscXYvBwf52y1hoI3gCgp0U+ 77I1AGXqNoZfJN7moOuYIv4= =BdiE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-90732756P--