Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 1 Dec 2000 01:01:23 -0600 (CST)
From:      sanjeev singh <remraf@hobbiton.org>
To:        Ruslan Ermilov <ru@sunbay.com>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: natd limiting download speed?
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSO.4.21.0012010041300.13692-100000@thorin>
In-Reply-To: <20001115093938.A36400@sunbay.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
hi Ruslan,

I tried using ipfilter/ipnat in place of ipfw/natd and got much better
performance: ~40% idle cycles during a 4mbps netperf test (as opposed to
~0% idle cycles with natd). Got similar results under a NAT'd download.

So, for the record, (at least on 486s) ipfilter/ipnat appears to be almost
twice as fast as ipfw/natd.

thanks for the tip,
- jeev


On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:20:01PM -0600, sanjeev singh wrote:
> > 
> >  Hello,
> > 
> >  I recently set up an ipfw+natd machine (FreeBSD 3.5.1R) for sharing my =
> >  cable connection.  Unfortunately, natd appears to be limiting the =
> >  maximum bandwidth available!
> > 
> This is because natd(8) is a userspace solution, and every packet is copied
> twice, first from kernel space to user space, and then back from user space
> to kernel space.
> 
> >  Using netperf, I have established that I can get up to just under 4mbps =
> >  with natd enabled, and 4.3mbps with it disabled.  This might not look =
> >  like a big deal, except that in the former case, my CPU is fully loaded =
> >  whereas in the latter it's only at 50%!
> > 
> >  Also, when testing high speed downloads (from netscape.com), I get the =
> >  following results:
> >  Download speed: ~350+KB/s
> >  CPU States: 50-60% system, ~35% interrupt and <10% idle
> >  natd takes up 80% of WCPU and CPU
> > 
> >  My firewall machine is a 486/66 (32MB Ram) with an NE2K and a Dec DE =
> >  201.  Are these results in the ballpark or could I have configured =
> >  something wrong?
> > 
> >  If these results are in the ballpark, what can I do to improve the =
> >  situation (short of upgrading my firewall machine)?  Is there a more =
> >  CPU-efficient version of natd available?  Should I try ipfilter/ipnat?
> > 
> You decide :-)
> 
> -- 
> Ruslan Ermilov		Oracle Developer/DBA,
> ru@sunbay.com		Sunbay Software AG,
> ru@FreeBSD.org		FreeBSD committer,
> +380.652.512.251	Simferopol, Ukraine
> 
> http://www.FreeBSD.org	The Power To Serve
> http://www.oracle.com	Enabling The Information Age
> 



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSO.4.21.0012010041300.13692-100000>