device polling on 6.2-stable..use? yes/no?

2007-06-26 Thread JD Bronson

Anyone using device polling on 6.2stable (i386) ?
I have been reading up on this and seen some good and some bad but 
nothing definitive.


I have bge NICs in these machines and they are running as routers, 
and  running pf.


When I enabled it in the kernel and then via rc.conf (since sysctl 
use is depreciated now) ...I can see a difference in "vmstat -i"

presuming thats the correct way to check.

With polling DISABLED...vmstat shows ever increasing values for example:

vmstat -i
interrupt  total   rate
irq4: sio0 3  0
irq6: fdc010  0
irq14: ata012210  0
irq15: ata178834  2
irq22: bge0   430416 11
irq23: bge1   917826 24
cpu0: timer 75098549   2000
cpu1: timer 75092636   1999
Total  151630484   4038

and when I do a large network operation (like ftp an ISO) it 
increases and increaseshowever, with device polling compiled and 
configured (all default values though in sysctl) - I do not see an 
increase in vmstat numbers for the nics...I figured thats good...but 
I might be wrong?


I dont do anything higher than WAN(10MB) and LAN(100MB).

But if anyone has any suggestions or comments  -especially values to 
adjust in sysctl, please chime in.


TIA

-JD

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: device polling on 6.2-stable..use? yes/no?

2007-06-27 Thread Pieter de Goeje
On Tuesday 26 June 2007, JD Bronson wrote:
> Anyone using device polling on 6.2stable (i386) ?
I have been using it.
> I have been reading up on this and seen some good and some bad but
> nothing definitive.
Basically you improve efficiency at the cost of latency, so expect lower CPU 
usage. To reduce latency one can increase HZ.
>
> I have bge NICs in these machines and they are running as routers,
> and  running pf.
>
> When I enabled it in the kernel and then via rc.conf (since sysctl
> use is depreciated now) ...I can see a difference in "vmstat -i"
> presuming thats the correct way to check.
Yes that would work.
>
> With polling DISABLED...vmstat shows ever increasing values for example:
>
> vmstat -i
> interrupt  total   rate
> irq4: sio0 3  0
> irq6: fdc010  0
> irq14: ata012210  0
> irq15: ata178834  2
> irq22: bge0   430416 11
> irq23: bge1   917826 24
> cpu0: timer 75098549   2000
> cpu1: timer 75092636   1999
> Total  151630484   4038
>
> and when I do a large network operation (like ftp an ISO) it
> increases and increaseshowever, with device polling compiled and
> configured (all default values though in sysctl) - I do not see an
> increase in vmstat numbers for the nics...I figured thats good...but
> I might be wrong?
Yup that's good. With polling off, you should never see it increase much 
beyond ~8000 interrupts/sec, the theoretical limit for an 100mbit connection 
with 1500 mtu while doing a big transfer. You can also check with 
systat -vmstat 1.
>
> I dont do anything higher than WAN(10MB) and LAN(100MB).
>
> But if anyone has any suggestions or comments  -especially values to
> adjust in sysctl, please chime in.
If you want lower latency (or if you experience packet loss) you could set
the kern.hz tunable (in loader.conf) to something higher than the default 
1000. I believe that people have been using 1 for busy routers. Note that 
this will increase CPU load when the system has no packets to process.
>
> TIA
>
> -JD

Cheers,
Pieter de GOeje
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"