From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct 11 14:06:18 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
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 D757216A403;
	Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:06:18 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il)
Received: from cs1.cs.huji.ac.il (cs1.cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.16.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799B543D5F;
	Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:06:18 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il)
Received: from pampa.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.80.32])
	by cs1.cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp
	id 1GXeiv-0007hw-4u; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:06:17 +0200
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2
To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:06:17 +0200
From: Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il>
Message-ID: <E1GXeiv-0007hw-4u@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: em blues
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:06:19 -0000

the box is a bit old (Intel Pentium III (933.07-MHz 686-class CPU)
dual cpu.

running iperf -c (receiving):

freebsd-4.10	0.0-10.0 sec    936 MBytes    785 Mbits/sec
freebsd-5.4	0.0-10.0 sec    413 MBytes    346 Mbits/sec
freebsd.6.1	0.0-10.0 sec    366 MBytes    307 Mbits/sec
freebsd-6.2	0.0-10.0 sec    344 MBytes    289 Mbits/sec

btw, iperf -s (xmitting) is slightly better
freebsd-4.10	0.0-10.0 sec    664 MBytes    558 Mbits/sec
freebsd-5.4	0.0-10.0 sec    390 MBytes    327 Mbits/sec
freebsd-6.1	0.0-10.0 sec    495 MBytes    415 Mbits/sec
freebsd-6.2	0.0-10.0 sec    487 MBytes    408 Mbits/sec

so, it seems that as the release number increases, the em
throughput gets worse - or iperf is.

danny