>>>>> "Mihai" == Mihai Tanasescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mihai> Hello, I'm running the following setup: Mihai> Freebsd Dual Xeon 3Ghz machine (SMP enabled) Mihai> 3 x 100 Mbits/s links (used at 80% capacity) - 3 x Intel 100 Mihai> fxp Mihai> 1 x 1000 Gbit link to a cisco router (transfers downstream the Mihai> other 3 links) - 1 x Intel em Mihai> I'm getting something arround 100k pkt/sec input and 100k Mihai> pkt/sec output as "systat -ip 1" shows. Mihai> Kernel polling is enabled. I have tried options HZ=1000, Mihai> options HZ=2500 to see if anything changes. Mihai> The problem: If I ping this machine or anything that is routed Mihai> through it I get response times of 10-15-30 ms and once in 30 Mihai> seconds a packet is lost. Mihai> If I disable kernel.polling.enable then I get response times of Mihai> 1-2-3 ms but I also get a lot of interrupts and a kernel panic Mihai> after about 20 min. We've done a bunch of different experiments on various hardware and various operating systems. 300 kpps of very small packets is about the forwarding limit of FreeBSD ... with any hardware we can find. So if your packets are non-trivial ... there is a lesser cost to packet size than packet number ... then 200kpps will likely show some loss due to FreeBSD's inability to forward more packets. Keep in mind that I've had two engineers spend months on this with some guidance from me. Now a stock linux on the same hardware can handle about 500 kpps, but there's a caveat. Linux hashes packet streams (key of sce ip, src port, dest ip, dest port) for both routed and terminated traffic. This hash has some advantages, but has a huge drawback. If you spray more than than the hash size worth of streams at the linux box (even if it's not routing), then it basically falls over. (not quite... packet performance goes from 500 kpps to less than 10kpps and everything is hosed until it stops. Profiling shows it spends 99% of it's time in the hash emptying and allocaing code) This means that a few megabit of fully random small packets will knock over an arbitrary linux box. Every time. Not even SCO boxes are that lame (hah... :) My current thinking is that the hardware model has to change to get better performance. I'm not really a hardware guy (hardware is evil), but as I understand it, we're approaching limits of PCI busses. One thing that might improve the performance of your box is to swap out the FXP's for EM's. Even at 100 megabit, the EM's are measurably more efficient at passing traffic. FXP's are no slouch (although, like em's, there's dozens of different kinds with differing performance characteristics), but EM's are better. The EM driver seems better at polling, too. Dave. -- ============================================================================ |David Gilbert, Independent Contractor. | Two things can be | |Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | equal if and only if they | |http://daveg.ca | are precisely opposite. | =========================================================GLO================ _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
