* Christer Solskogen christer.solsko...@gmail.com [2011-08-22 22:53]:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org
wrote:
- faster ram
Are you sure about that? Almost every benchmark I've seen, fast ram
has almost nothing to say.
you have only seen very bad
Le Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:21:32 +0200,
Per-Olov SjC6holm p...@incedo.org a C)crit :
Hello,
Here we reach 400 MBits/s with a CPU rate ~70% but we
run OpenBSD 4.9.
How fast is your CPU ?
cpu0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz, 2261.30 MHz
It's a Dell R610 with 4Go RAM.
On 24 aug 2011, at 12:01, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
Le Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:21:32 +0200,
Per-Olov SjC6holm p...@incedo.org a C)crit :
Hello,
Here we reach 400 MBits/s with a CPU rate ~70% but we
run OpenBSD 4.9.
How fast is your CPU ?
cpu0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz, 2261.30
On 23 aug 2011, at 19:30, Tomas Bodzar wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Per-Olov Sjvholm p...@incedo.org wrote:
On 23 aug 2011, at 10:54, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
Le Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:49:47 +0200,
Per-Olov SjC6holm p...@incedo.org a C)crit :
Hello,
Have not tried current, but will
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Per-Olov SjC6holm p...@incedo.org wrote:
On 23 aug 2011, at 19:30, Tomas Bodzar wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Per-Olov Sjvholm p...@incedo.org wrote:
On 23 aug 2011, at 10:54, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
Le Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:49:47 +0200,
Per-Olov
If you want a comparison, I have run a small OpenBSD router under KVM
and it easily sustained 80Mbps. It was connected to a FastEthernet
switch so it couldnt actually go much higher. This was using the
emulated e1000 KVM device and OpenBSD 4.9 release with mpbios iic
disabled (disabling iic
On 8/24/2011 11:31 AM, Lars Hansson wrote:
If you want a comparison, I have run a small OpenBSD router under KVM
and it easily sustained 80Mbps. It was connected to a FastEthernet
switch so it couldnt actually go much higher. This was using the
emulated e1000 KVM device and OpenBSD 4.9 release
On 24 aug 2011, at 19:13, Tomas Bodzar wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Per-Olov Sjvholm p...@incedo.org wrote:
On 23 aug 2011, at 19:30, Tomas Bodzar wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Per-Olov Sjvholm p...@incedo.org wrote:
On 23 aug 2011, at 10:54, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
Le
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 07:00:09PM +0200, Per-Olov SjC6holm wrote:
- SMP
worse. Really sucks! _Dramatically_ reduced throughput.
This is probably a result of you testing a virtualised guest rather than
real hardware.
- One processor core (as most of my tests have used)
An improvement, but
On 23 aug 2011, at 01:32, john slee wrote:
On 22 August 2011 23:45, Per-Olov Sjvholm p...@incedo.org wrote:
As http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html states, there's little you can
tweak
to improve your numbers; just get a nice-clocked, good cache-sized CPU and
give it some loving.
The FAQ
Le Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:49:47 +0200,
Per-Olov SjC6holm p...@incedo.org a C)crit :
Hello,
Have not tried current, but will try current as soon as I can.
Also... I will try to do some laborations with CPU speed of the core
the OpenBSD virtual machine has. This to see how the interrupts and
Le Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:04:50 + (UTC),
Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org a C)crit :
Hello,
OpenBSD has another way to handle this, MCLGETI.
Is there a documentation (for the human being, not the developer)
about how MCLGETI works? (don't find a lot about it)
Thanks, regards.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 09:10:05AM +0200, Per-Olov SjC6holm wrote:
If you please will explain how baddynamic and avoiding certain ports will
affect what we are talking about...
Naaahh lets forget that section
I believe people are referring to the text above that:
One goal of OpenBSD is
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Patrick Lamaiziere
patf...@davenulle.org wrote:
Le Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:04:50 + (UTC),
Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org a C)crit :
Hello,
OpenBSD has another way to handle this, MCLGETI.
Is there a documentation (for the human being, not the
On 2011-08-22, Per-Olov Sj?holm p...@incedo.org wrote:
MCLGETI ?? Is it in if_em.c if I want to see how it is implemented?
it's in various files, see mbuf(9) and look for videos/slides from talks
by dlg (David Gwynne), there's an asiabsdcon talk with more details and quite
possibly some others.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:42:59AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2011-08-22, Per-Olov Sj?holm p...@incedo.org wrote:
MCLGETI ?? Is it in if_em.c if I want to see how it is implemented?
it's in various files, see mbuf(9) and look for videos/slides from talks
by dlg (David Gwynne),
On 23 aug 2011, at 10:54, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
Le Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:49:47 +0200,
Per-Olov SjC6holm p...@incedo.org a C)crit :
Hello,
Have not tried current, but will try current as soon as I can.
Also... I will try to do some laborations with CPU speed of the core
the OpenBSD virtual
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Per-Olov SjC6holm p...@incedo.org wrote:
On 23 aug 2011, at 10:54, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
Le Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:49:47 +0200,
Per-Olov SjC6holm p...@incedo.org a C)crit :
Hello,
Have not tried current, but will try current as soon as I can.
Also... I will
On 22 aug 2011, at 07:45, Tomas Bodzar wrote:
Try OpenBSD outside of KVM on real HW and you will see where's the
bottleneck. Anyway getting 400Mbit/s under virtualization seems pretty
fine or try to compare with OpenBSD running in VMware as there's fine
support for that use.
Of course
On 08/22/11 10:59, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote:
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Rants.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Per-Olov SjC6holm p...@incedo.org wrote:
On 22 aug 2011, at 07:45, Tomas Bodzar wrote:
Try OpenBSD outside of KVM on real HW and you will see where's the
bottleneck. Anyway getting 400Mbit/s under virtualization seems pretty
fine or try to compare with OpenBSD
AFAIK, OpenBSD kernel is not designed accounting for any form of
virtualization toy, so don't even try figuring performance numbers out
of it. These will be plain wrong.
As http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html states, there's little you can
tweak to improve your numbers; just get a
Plz, don't top post
sorry. Sometimes I forgot because here are different rules.
Just try and make your emails look nice and easy to read if you want
other people to read them, especially if you're asking others for help.
Before you hit send, read through your email, if it doesn't look good,
On 22 aug 2011, at 12:09, Daniel Gracia wrote:
AFAIK, OpenBSD kernel is not designed accounting for any form of
virtualization toy, so don't even try figuring performance numbers out of it.
These will be plain wrong.
As http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html states, there's little you can tweak
But if you can give hints of how to decrease the interrupt load I am all ears.
As I see it, if the interrupt handling model i OpenBSD would change to a
polling one u could maybe increase the throughput at the same processor speed
(just me guessing though). But now the fact is that it is not
On 22 aug 2011, at 22:04, Stuart Henderson wrote:
But if you can give hints of how to decrease the interrupt load I am all
ears.
As I see it, if the interrupt handling model i OpenBSD would change to a
polling one u could maybe increase the throughput at the same processor
speed
(just me
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
- faster ram
Are you sure about that? Almost every benchmark I've seen, fast ram
has almost nothing to say. I would be delighted if what I've been
reading is wrong :-)
--
chs,
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:53:05PM +0200, Christer Solskogen wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org
wrote:
- faster ram
Are you sure about that? Almost every benchmark I've seen, fast ram
has almost nothing to say. I would be delighted if what I've
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:49:47PM +0200, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote:
On 22 aug 2011, at 22:04, Stuart Henderson wrote:
But if you can give hints of how to decrease the interrupt load I am all
ears.
As I see it, if the interrupt handling model i OpenBSD would change to a
polling one u could
On 22 aug 2011, at 23:28, Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:49:47PM +0200, Per-Olov Sjvholm wrote:
On 22 aug 2011, at 22:04, Stuart Henderson wrote:
But if you can give hints of how to decrease the interrupt load I am all
ears.
As I see it, if the interrupt handling model i
On 22 August 2011 23:45, Per-Olov Sjvholm p...@incedo.org wrote:
As http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html states, there's little you can
tweak
to improve your numbers; just get a nice-clocked, good cache-sized CPU and
give it some loving.
The FAQ you refer to seems to be of no use at all and
Hi Misc
# Background #
I have done som fun laborations with a virtual fully patched OpenBSD 4.9
firewall on top of SuSE Enterprise Linux 11 SP1 running KVM. The Virtual
OpenBSD got 512MB RAM and one core from a system with two quadcore Xeon 5504
(2Ghz) sitting in a Dell T410 Tower Server. I have
Try OpenBSD outside of KVM on real HW and you will see where's the
bottleneck. Anyway getting 400Mbit/s under virtualization seems pretty
fine or try to compare with OpenBSD running in VMware as there's fine
support for that use.
Of course security is around zero in this scenario, but as you said
33 matches
Mail list logo
