Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:15:52 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: "Nick Pavlica" <linicks@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> Subject: Re: em forwarding performance (was Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch Message-ID: <200611301417.kAUEHqAm046076@lava.sentex.ca> In-Reply-To: <dc9ba0440611292151qad92eaal129f11142d50b1db@mail.gmail.com > References: <4557CECD.2000609@samsco.org> <200611132054.kADKsFvK045726@lava.sentex.ca> <4558E3DC.6080800@samsco.org> <200611200454.kAK4sdat083568@lava.sentex.ca> <7.1.0.9.0.20061120160757.14d4a728@sentex.net> <200611220247.kAM2l9JP095066@lava.sentex.ca> <20061122130947.GM20405@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <200611231652.kANGqJsr005016@lava.sentex.ca> <dc9ba0440611251112h52ec543av6f54166fea0a05ff@mail.gmail.com> <200611272154.kARLsMC7029800@lava.sentex.ca> <dc9ba0440611292151qad92eaal129f11142d50b1db@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:51 AM 11/30/2006, Nick Pavlica wrote: >>Did a quick default install. Results are not so interesting since one >>stream livelocks the box. Basic stats at http://www.tancsa.com/blast.html >> >>If there are some OpenSolaris wizards out there who want me to tune, >>I am happy to retest... > >Mike, > I'm not an OpenSolaris/Solaris expert, but was curious which build >you were testing with. Hi, I grabbed the latest DVD bits that were available at the time. # uname -a SunOS interlope 5.11 snv_52 i86pc i386 i86pc >SolarisExpress CE or B52 at the time of this writing. Of course I >patched all of these boxes before I did my testing which was mostly >centered around disk I/O performance on UFS and ZFS, and some >experimentation with Zones/Containers. Didnt do any patches. The only thing I did was kill off X and disable and enable ipfilter. Its quite possible there was other cruft running that I didnt know about, but like I said, this was my first exposure to OpenSolaris so I have no idea if there are things I should have set. > I'm surprised that the console >locked up during your tests. >My limited experience with Solaris 10+ >thus far has been positive in terms of performance and stability. It does recover afterwards, but pretty well all other processes stop as the CPU I guess is pegged dealing with all the interrupts. Thinking further about my tests, it doesnt really do that great of a job of simulating normal real world conditions. In the real world, the packet sizes will vary and the speeds will be all over the place. I am wondering if some of these modern nics have that in mind with their design. But then again, this is sort of the scenario when a firewal gets blasted by a high PPS attack :( >When I have stressed my test systems, they remained responsive and >seemed to have better performance than FC6 and Ubuntu6.10 when >copying large files across my network. But thats pretty different then my test setup. All the OSes I tested can do that no problem :) >Thanks for digging in with this testing, I hope you keep at it. Yeah I inadvertently slighted the NetBSD folks by leaving them out. So I guess I better give them a try as well. The part that really surprises me is the drop in performance as firewall rules are added to RELENG_6 and above. Both LINUX and RELENG_4 seem to scale well with the number of rules added but RELENG_6 takes a big drop. ---Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200611301417.kAUEHqAm046076>