Le Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:09:32 +0100,
Patrick Lamaiziere patf...@davenulle.org a icrit :
(4.8/amd64)
I'm using two ethernet cards Intel 1000/PRO quad ports (gigabit) on a
firewall (one fiber and one copper).
The problem is that we don't get more than ~320 Mbits/s of bandwith
beetween the
On 2011-02-28, Manuel Guesdon ml+openbsd.m...@oxymium.net wrote:
OK. Anyway NIC buffers restrict buffered packets number. But the problem
remain: why a (for exemple) dual Xeon E5520@2.27GHz with Intel PRO/1000
(82576) can't route 150kpps without Ierr :-)
http://www.oxymium.net/tmp/core3-dmesg
2011/3/23 Kapetanakis Giannis bil...@edu.physics.uoc.gr:
I'm testing my self a 2 port 82571EB on a new fw.
How are you doing the pps test?
I'm actually reporting the values found in the first systat page. I
have a suspicion these counters act weird on cloning interfaces (I saw
the IPKTS being
Hi,
we just bought a new firewall, so I did some tests. It has 2
integrated i82574L's and we use 2port i82571EB. I tested routing
through this box with a simple match out on em1 nat-to (em1) rule,
using 4.8-stable, tcpbench on all five end computers and here's what I
got:
- maximum throughput 183
- at the end of the day I tried 4.9 -current amd64 from 18th March and
it actually performed worse - around 175 MB/s max and 70% CPU with
571EBs.
-current kernels contain an option called POOL_DEBUG which has a pretty
high impact on network traffic. Unfortunately POOL_DEBUG is useful..
On 23/03/11 16:59, Martin Pelikan wrote:
Hi,
we just bought a new firewall, so I did some tests. It has 2
integrated i82574L's and we use 2port i82571EB. I tested routing
through this box with a simple match out on em1 nat-to (em1) rule,
using 4.8-stable, tcpbench on all five end computers
Hello
I have couple of old ProLiants with bxp/em interfaces with 4.8 stable.
If you provide me more info what to test extactly and what output to send,
I'd gladly help.
BR
Peter
On 13 Mar 2011 03:56, Ryan McBride mcbr...@openbsd.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 06:29:42PM -0800, Chris
W dniu 2011-03-12 01:26, Stuart Henderson pisze:
On 2011-03-11, RLWseran...@o2.pl wrote:
Because lately some people wrote to the group about network bandwidth
problems with em(4) i have run some test myself.
Most of the recent posts about this have been about packet
forwarding perfornance;
Ryan McBride [mcbr...@openbsd.org] wrote:
Are you suggesting that because you have a quad-port gig nic, your box
should be able to do 6 *million* packets per second? By that logic my
5-port Soekris net4801 should be able to handle 740kpps. (for reference,
the net4801 does about 3kpps with
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 06:29:42PM -0800, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
Are you suggesting that because you have a quad-port gig nic, your box
should be able to do 6 *million* packets per second? By that logic my
5-port Soekris net4801 should be able to handle 740kpps. (for reference,
the net4801
I fixed my issue. I demoted the OpenBSD 4.4 machine so the 4.8 one took
over as CARP master, downed pfsync0 on both machines and now the 4.8
box is happily passing tons of packets. It was pfsync0 that was messing
up 4.8 even with defer: off it was struggling.
Going to test it for about a week,
W dniu 2011-03-05 21:24, Manuel Guesdon pisze:
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:09:51 +0900
Ryan McBridemcbr...@openbsd.org wrote:
| On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 08:40:10PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
| systat -s 2 vmstat:
|
| 3.2%Int 0.1%Sys 0.0%Usr 0.0%Nic 96.8%Idle
| |||||
RLW wrote:
W dniu 2011-03-05 21:24, Manuel Guesdon pisze:
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:09:51 +0900
Ryan McBridemcbr...@openbsd.org wrote:
| On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 08:40:10PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
| systat -s 2 vmstat:
|
| 3.2%Int 0.1%Sys 0.0%Usr 0.0%Nic 96.8%Idle
|
On 2011-03-11, RLW seran...@o2.pl wrote:
Because lately some people wrote to the group about network bandwidth
problems with em(4) i have run some test myself.
Most of the recent posts about this have been about packet
forwarding perfornance; sourcing/sinking packets on the box
itself is also
Hi,
I had a pair of Dell PowerEdge R200s that have both em(4) and bge(4)s
in them, however, it's the em(4) doing the heavy lifting. Roughly 30-40
megabits/s sustained and doing anywhere between 3000-4000 packets/s.
On OpenBSD 4.4, it happily forwards packets along. I upgraded one of
the
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:18:32PM +, Tom Murphy wrote:
I had a pair of Dell PowerEdge R200s that have both em(4) and bge(4)s
in them, however, it's the em(4) doing the heavy lifting. Roughly 30-40
megabits/s sustained and doing anywhere between 3000-4000 packets/s.
On OpenBSD 4.4,
Ryan McBride wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:18:32PM +, Tom Murphy wrote:
I had a pair of Dell PowerEdge R200s that have both em(4) and bge(4)s
in them, however, it's the em(4) doing the heavy lifting. Roughly 30-40
megabits/s sustained and doing anywhere between 3000-4000
On 03/10/2011 03:45 PM, Tom Murphy wrote:
Ryan McBride wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:18:32PM +, Tom Murphy wrote:
I had a pair of Dell PowerEdge R200s that have both em(4) and bge(4)s
in them, however, it's the em(4) doing the heavy lifting. Roughly 30-40
megabits/s sustained
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Leen Besselink
open...@consolejunkie.net Hi folks,
Sorry for hijacking this thread.
I also have a Dell machine with em(4)'s.
When I upgraded a machine from 4.3 or 4.4 to 4.7 the kernel is leaking
memory I've been looking at it ever since. This was just
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 08:40:10PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
systat -s 2 vmstat:
3.2%Int 0.1%Sys 0.0%Usr 0.0%Nic 96.8%Idle
|||||||||||
The numbers presented here are
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:09:51 +0900
Ryan McBride mcbr...@openbsd.org wrote:
| On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 08:40:10PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
| systat -s 2 vmstat:
|
| 3.2%Int 0.1%Sys 0.0%Usr 0.0%Nic 96.8%Idle
| ||
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 03:52:54PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
Of course and s/OpenBSD/FreeBSD/ may help too but none of these proposals
seems very constructive.
If you think that you'd be better served by FreeBSD, please go ahead and
use that instead.
| I think we already mentioned it that
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 22:53:30 +0900
Ryan McBride mcbr...@openbsd.org wrote:
| On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 03:52:54PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
| | I think we already mentioned it that you will always see Ierr. The
| | question is if the box is able to forward more then 150kpps.
|
| Yes that's
| On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 03:52:54PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
| | I think we already mentioned it that you will always see Ierr. The
| | question is if the box is able to forward more then 150kpps.
|
| Yes that's one a the questions. We can divide it into 3 questions:
| 1) is the
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 00:51:46 + (UTC)
Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
| On 2011-02-28, Manuel Guesdon ml+openbsd.m...@oxymium.net wrote:
| http://www.oxymium.net/tmp/core3-dmesg
|
| ipmi0 at mainbus0: version 2.0 interface KCS iobase 0xca2/2 spacing 1
|
| ipmi is disabled in
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:11:13AM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 00:51:46 + (UTC)
Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
| On 2011-02-28, Manuel Guesdon ml+openbsd.m...@oxymium.net wrote:
| http://www.oxymium.net/tmp/core3-dmesg
|
| ipmi0 at mainbus0: version
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:12:09 +0100
Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com wrote:
| On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:11:13AM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
| On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 00:51:46 + (UTC)
| Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
|
| | On 2011-02-28, Manuel Guesdon
- Original Message -
| On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:11:13AM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
| On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 00:51:46 + (UTC)
| Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
|
| | On 2011-02-28, Manuel Guesdon ml+openbsd.m...@oxymium.net
| | wrote:
| |
W dniu 2011-03-02 13:52, Ryan McBride pisze:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:49:01PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
OK. Anyway NIC buffers restrict buffered packets number. But the problem
remain: why a (for exemple) dual Xeon E5520@2.27GHz with Intel PRO/1000
(82576) can't route 150kpps without Ierr
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:49:01PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
OK. Anyway NIC buffers restrict buffered packets number. But the problem
remain: why a (for exemple) dual Xeon E5520@2.27GHz with Intel PRO/1000
(82576) can't route 150kpps without Ierr :-)
http://www.oxymium.net/tmp/core3-dmesg
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 21:52:03 +0900
Ryan McBride mcbr...@openbsd.org wrote:
| On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:49:01PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
| OK. Anyway NIC buffers restrict buffered packets number. But the problem
| remain: why a (for exemple) dual Xeon E5520@2.27GHz with Intel PRO/1000
|
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 08:34:02PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 21:52:03 +0900
Ryan McBride mcbr...@openbsd.org wrote:
| On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:49:01PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
| OK. Anyway NIC buffers restrict buffered packets number. But the problem
| remain:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 21:12:24 +0100
Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com wrote:
| | One thing that seems to have a big performance impact is
| | net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen. If and only if your network cards are all
| | supported by MCLGETI (ie, they show LWM/CWM/HWM values in 'systat
| | mbufs',
Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 08:34:02PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 21:52:03 +0900
Ryan McBride mcbr...@openbsd.org wrote:
| On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:49:01PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
| OK. Anyway NIC buffers restrict buffered packets number.
On 2011-02-28, Manuel Guesdon ml+openbsd.m...@oxymium.net wrote:
http://www.oxymium.net/tmp/core3-dmesg
ipmi0 at mainbus0: version 2.0 interface KCS iobase 0xca2/2 spacing 1
ipmi is disabled in GENERIC. have you tried without it?
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:03:22 -0700 (MST)
Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
| We've got same problems (on a routeur, not a firewall). Increasing
| MAX_INTS_PER_SEC to 24000 increased bandwith and lowered packet loss.
| Our cards are Intel PRO/1000 (82576) and Intel PRO/1000 FP
|
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:49:01PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
OK. Anyway NIC buffers restrict buffered packets number. But the problem
remain: why a (for exemple) dual Xeon E5520@2.27GHz with Intel PRO/1000
(82576) can't route 150kpps without Ierr :-)
http://www.oxymium.net/tmp/core3-dmesg
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:29:01 +0900
Ryan McBride mcbr...@openbsd.org wrote:
| On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:49:01PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
| OK. Anyway NIC buffers restrict buffered packets number. But the problem
| remain: why a (for exemple) dual Xeon E5520@2.27GHz with Intel PRO/1000
|
Le Sat, 26 Feb 2011 00:23:36 +0900,
Ryan McBride mcbr...@openbsd.org a icrit :
How about a _full_ dmesg, so someone can take a wild guess at
what your machine is capable of?
full dmesg : http://user.lamaiziere.net/patrick/dmesg-open48.txt
The box is a Dell R610 server.
This
Le 28/02/2011 16:51, Patrick Lamaiziere a icrit :
Le Sat, 26 Feb 2011 00:23:36 +0900,
Ryan McBridemcbr...@openbsd.org a icrit :
How about a _full_ dmesg, so someone can take a wild guess at
what your machine is capable of?
full dmesg : http://user.lamaiziere.net/patrick/dmesg-open48.txt
The
OK. Anyway NIC buffers restrict buffered packets number. But the problem
remain: why a (for exemple) dual Xeon E5520@2.27GHz with Intel PRO/1000
(82576) can't route 150kpps without Ierr :-)
http://www.oxymium.net/tmp/core3-dmesg
Just an idea, but may be it very well could have something to do
mendagen den 28 februari 2011 23.00.10 skrev Daniel Ouellet:
OK. Anyway NIC buffers restrict buffered packets number. But the problem
remain: why a (for exemple) dual Xeon E5520@2.27GHz with Intel PRO/1000
(82576) can't route 150kpps without Ierr :-)
http://www.oxymium.net/tmp/core3-dmesg
On 02/24/11 19:28, RLW wrote:
W dniu 2011-02-24 12:11, Patrick Lamaiziere pisze:
Le Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:09:18 +0100,
Manuel Guesdonml+openbsd.m...@oxymium.net a icrit :
| Did you try to increase the number of descriptor?
| #define EM_MAX_TXD 256
| #define EM_MAX_RXD 256
|
| I've tried up to
On Thu, Feb 24 2011 at 28:19, RLW wrote:
[...]
ok, so the conclusion might be, that if one want to have transfers
bigger than 300mbit/s on em(4), one should tuning the em(4) driver
source code?
False
Here are the tests I've done with a packet generator.
Le Fri, 25 Feb 2011 08:41:20 +0900,
Ryan McBride mcbr...@openbsd.org a icrit :
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 06:07:16PM +0100, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
I log the congestion counter (each 10s) and there are at max 3 or 4
congestions per day. I don't think the bottleneck is pf.
The congestion
Le Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:51:32 +0100,
Patrick Lamaiziere patf...@davenulle.org a icrit :
(ooops, push the wrong button)
How about a _full_ dmesg, so someone can take a wild guess at what
your machine is capable of?
full dmesg : http://user.lamaiziere.net/patrick/dmesg-open48.txt
The box is a
Le Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:51:32 +0100,
Patrick Lamaiziere patf...@davenulle.org a icrit :
systat mbufs:
IFACELIVELOCKS SIZE ALIVE LWM HWM CWM
What does these counters mean?
Thanks.
Le Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:09:32 +0100,
Patrick Lamaiziere patf...@davenulle.org a icrit :
(4.8/amd64)
Hello,
I'm using two ethernet cards Intel 1000/PRO quad ports (gigabit) on a
firewall (one fiber and one copper).
The problem is that we don't get more than ~320 Mbits/s of bandwith
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 02:05:30PM +0100, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
Le Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:51:32 +0100,
Patrick Lamaiziere patf...@davenulle.org a icrit :
(ooops, push the wrong button)
How about a _full_ dmesg, so someone can take a wild guess at what
your machine is capable of?
Hi,
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 08:41:20 +0900
Ryan McBride mcbr...@openbsd.org wrote:
..
| The output of `systat mbufs` is worth looking at, in particular the
| figure for LIVELOCKS, and the LWM/CWM figures for the interface(s) in
| question.
|
| If the livelocks value is very high, and the LWM/CWM
Le Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:09:18 +0100,
Manuel Guesdon ml+openbsd.m...@oxymium.net a icrit :
| Did you try to increase the number of descriptor?
| #define EM_MAX_TXD 256
| #define EM_MAX_RXD 256
|
| I've tried up to 2048 (and with MAX_INTS_PER_SEC = 16000) but it
looks | worth.
Thank you !
W dniu 2011-02-24 12:11, Patrick Lamaiziere pisze:
Le Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:09:18 +0100,
Manuel Guesdonml+openbsd.m...@oxymium.net a icrit :
| Did you try to increase the number of descriptor?
| #define EM_MAX_TXD 256
| #define EM_MAX_RXD 256
|
| I've tried up to 2048 (and with
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 06:07:16PM +0100, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
I log the congestion counter (each 10s) and there are at max 3 or 4
congestions per day. I don't think the bottleneck is pf.
The congestion counter doesn't directly mean you have a bottleneck in
PF; it's triggered by the IP
id like to reiterate ryans advice to have a look at the systat mbuf output.
as he said, mclgeti will try to protect the host by restricting the number of
packets placed on the rx rings. it turns out you dont need (or cant use) a lot
of packets on the ring, so bumping the ring size is a useless
We've got same problems (on a routeur, not a firewall). Increasing
MAX_INTS_PER_SEC to 24000 increased bandwith and lowered packet loss.
Our cards are Intel PRO/1000 (82576) and Intel PRO/1000 FP
(82576).
Did you try to increase the number of descriptor?
#define EM_MAX_TXD 256
#define
Le Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:13:48 +0100,
Manuel Guesdon ml+openbsd.m...@oxymium.net a icrit :
Hello,
We've got same problems (on a routeur, not a firewall). Increasing
MAX_INTS_PER_SEC to 24000 increased bandwith and lowered packet loss.
Our cards are Intel PRO/1000 (82576) and Intel PRO/1000 FP
Le Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:22:16 -0800 (PST),
James A. Peltier jpelt...@sfu.ca a icrit :
Those documents do not necessarily apply any more. Don't go tweaking
knobs until you know what they do. We have machines here that
transfer nearly a gigabit of traffic/s without tuning in bridge mode
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:52:21 +0100
Patrick Lamaiziere patf...@davenulle.org wrote:
| Le Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:13:48 +0100,
| Manuel Guesdon ml+openbsd.m...@oxymium.net a icrit :
|
| Hello,
|
| We've got same problems (on a routeur, not a firewall). Increasing
| MAX_INTS_PER_SEC to 24000
(4.8/amd64)
Hello,
I'm using two ethernet cards Intel 1000/PRO quad ports (gigabit) on a
firewall (one fiber and one copper).
The problem is that we don't get more than ~320 Mbits/s of bandwith
beetween the internal networks and internet (gigabit).
As far I can see, on load there is a number
On 22 Feb 2011, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
The problem is that we don't get more than ~320 Mbits/s of bandwith
beetween the internal networks and internet (gigabit).
Have you already looked at:
---
https://calomel.org/network_performance.html
--
Mark Nipper
ni...@bitgnome.net (XMPP)
+1
Hello,
We kinda have the same setup, but with bnx(4) devices. And there is no
problem. I'm used to download big files on FTP all over the world and we
have gigabit connectivity without any pf related tuning. We are planning
to use em(4) 82876 on another path to another ISP so if you find
Le Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:19:26 -0600,
Mark Nipper ni...@bitgnome.net a icrit :
The problem is that we don't get more than ~320 Mbits/s of bandwith
beetween the internal networks and internet (gigabit).
Have you already looked at:
---
https://calomel.org/network_performance.html
Yes
Hi,
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:09:32 +0100
Patrick Lamaiziere patf...@davenulle.org wrote:
| I'm using two ethernet cards Intel 1000/PRO quad ports (gigabit) on a
| firewall (one fiber and one copper).
|
| The problem is that we don't get more than ~320 Mbits/s of bandwith
| beetween the internal
W dniu 2011-02-22 18:31, Fridiric URBAN pisze:
Hello,
We kinda have the same setup, but with bnx(4) devices. And there is no
problem. I'm used to download big files on FTP all over the world and we
have gigabit connectivity without any pf related tuning. We are planning
to use em(4) 82876 on
On 02/22/11 11:19, Mark Nipper wrote:
On 22 Feb 2011, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
The problem is that we don't get more than ~320 Mbits/s of bandwith
beetween the internal networks and internet (gigabit).
Have you already looked at:
---
https://calomel.org/network_performance.html
Those documents do not necessarily apply any more. Don't go tweaking knobs
until you know what they do. We have machines here that transfer nearly a
gigabit of traffic/s without tuning in bridge mode non-the-less.
Are you seeing any packet congestion markers (counter congestion) in systat pf?
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Patrick Lamaiziere
patf...@davenulle.org wrote:
https://calomel.org/network_performance.html
Yes thanks. I've already increase the size of the
net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen.
But I don't see the point of these tunings for a firewall. IMHO, it
could help for a host
On 22 February 2011 14:09, Patrick Lamaiziere patf...@davenulle.org wrote:
(4.8/amd64)
Hello,
I'm using two ethernet cards Intel 1000/PRO quad ports (gigabit) on a
firewall (one fiber and one copper).
The problem is that we don't get more than ~320 Mbits/s of bandwith
beetween the
68 matches
Mail list logo
