From: Mike Tancsa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > At 08:44 PM 29/02/2004, Don Bowman wrote: > >From: Mike Tancsa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:17:44 -0500, in > sentex.lists.freebsd.hackers > > > > >If you want to spend more time in kernel, perhaps change > > > > > > > >I might have HZ @ 2500 as well. I picked 2500 as the best for my system. Its higher than allowed by rfc1323 and PAWS [kern/61404], but not by so much that i anticipate a problem.
Do you run the box with the supplied patch ? On the firewall device I was thinking of experimenting with, I do have long TCP sessions that it sounds like HZ=2500 would break.
For my target packets per second rate, it means that i can use a reasonable number of dma descriptors. I found that bridging performance in particular needs the higher hz to avoid dropping packets, to improve its performance.
In terms of fiddling with the em tunables, what are the drawbacks of moving from 256 to 512 on
EM_MAX_TXD EM_MAX_RXD
more buffers == better ability to handle latency bursts, but worse for cache occupancy.
Buffers as is net.inet.ip.intr_queue_maxlen ?
Thanks,
---Mike
_______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
