Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 13:19:28 -0500 From: Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ixgbe: Network performance tuning (#TCP connections) Message-ID: <56B4E7B0.9010509@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <EC88118611AE564AB0B10C6A4569004D0137D58050@HOBEX11.hob.de> References: <EC88118611AE564AB0B10C6A4569004D0137D57AEB@HOBEX11.hob.de> <56B23DEA.1060307@freebsd.org> <CAHM0Q_NeXBeQvctMA8oaaUtWVncKzFX7qxbasWCoR04fGUP-dw@mail.gmail.com> <EC88118611AE564AB0B10C6A4569004D0137D58050@HOBEX11.hob.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2016-02-05 13:05, Meyer, Wolfgang wrote: > > > As I was telling in my original message, the rxd and txd values were more or less the only ones that changed my numbers to the better when reducing them. Not that I understood that behaviour but a double-check now revealed that I stand corrected on this observation. Raising the value (to 1024) now did not only degrade througput to my original bad numbers but to the opposite slightly improved it (but only barely measurable compared to measurement variation). Don't know what cross interaction was leading to my original observation. > > Concerning pcb hash table size I only found net.inet.sctp.pcbhashsize and that had no influence. Not sure whether sctp plays a role at all in my problem. > > Regards, > Wolfgang Meyer > > I think the one you are looking for is: net.inet.tcp.tcbhashsize See if doubling that makes a difference. -- Allan Jude
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56B4E7B0.9010509>