Re: [pfSense Support] interrupt v kernel usage
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:20 AM, David Burgess apt@gmail.com wrote: Was I wrong to expect a drop in CPU usage with the Intel GBE? If you had a more beafy CPU, I'm sure the usage would go down. The 500MHz Geode is a puny processor relatively, so it is spending a lot more time doing the work than a bigger CPU would take. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
[pfSense Support] interrupt v kernel usage
I'm using a pair of onboard (vr) NICs on a net5501-80 (500 MHz Geode) with vlans to firewall a 36/4 mlppp connection. During heavy download top reports interrupts around 40-50% CPU usage with most of the remainder being idle. I dropped in an Intel Pro 1000 GT (em, PCI) in place of one of the onboards to handle the internal vlans and during heavy downloading the interrupts dropped down to around 20%, but now the kernel process was reporting ~17% CPU usage. The idle process was not significantly different from the vr NIC to the em. I was surprised by this result, not only because of Intel's sterling reputation among pfsense users, but also because of the fact alone that the Intel NIC is gigabit hardware (on a gigabit switch). Was I wrong to expect a drop in CPU usage with the Intel GBE? Also, before somebody mentions it, TSO and LRO were enabled for this test. I tried disabling LRO, but this immediately caused pfsense to become unresponsive on the network and the serial console. After resetting it LRO was still enabled, so I didn't provoke it further. Within a couple hours pfsense had locked up again, so I moved the LAN cable back to the onboard NIC and it's been running stably for 17 hours since (with the Intel card still installed but not assigned). Thoughts? db - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] interrupt v kernel usage
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:20 AM, David Burgess apt@gmail.com wrote: I'm using a pair of onboard (vr) NICs on a net5501-80 (500 MHz Geode) with vlans to firewall a 36/4 mlppp connection. During heavy download top reports interrupts around 40-50% CPU usage with most of the remainder being idle. I dropped in an Intel Pro 1000 GT (em, PCI) in place of one of the onboards to handle the internal vlans and during heavy downloading the interrupts dropped down to around 20%, but now the kernel process was reporting ~17% CPU usage. The idle process was not significantly different from the vr NIC to the em. I was surprised by this result, not only because of Intel's sterling reputation among pfsense users, but also because of the fact alone that the Intel NIC is gigabit hardware (on a gigabit switch). Was I wrong to expect a drop in CPU usage with the Intel GBE? No, but in the 5501's case it doesn't surprise me. If you had a PC or server with vr PCI NICs and replaced them with em PCI NICs, there is a considerable difference (though the vr NICs I have at least aren't too bad performance-wise, they beat out Realtek rl handily). Not sure what the bus on the 5501 is like but there could be a big difference between going from onboard to PCI on that kind of hardware. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] interrupt v kernel usage
I would turn on Device polling (Or off if it is on) Am 25.08.2010 um 08:20 schrieb David Burgess: I'm using a pair of onboard (vr) NICs on a net5501-80 (500 MHz Geode) with vlans to firewall a 36/4 mlppp connection. During heavy download top reports interrupts around 40-50% CPU usage with most of the remainder being idle. I dropped in an Intel Pro 1000 GT (em, PCI) in place of one of the onboards to handle the internal vlans and during heavy downloading the interrupts dropped down to around 20%, but now the kernel process was reporting ~17% CPU usage. The idle process was not significantly different from the vr NIC to the em. I was surprised by this result, not only because of Intel's sterling reputation among pfsense users, but also because of the fact alone that the Intel NIC is gigabit hardware (on a gigabit switch). Was I wrong to expect a drop in CPU usage with the Intel GBE? Also, before somebody mentions it, TSO and LRO were enabled for this test. I tried disabling LRO, but this immediately caused pfsense to become unresponsive on the network and the serial console. After resetting it LRO was still enabled, so I didn't provoke it further. Within a couple hours pfsense had locked up again, so I moved the LAN cable back to the onboard NIC and it's been running stably for 17 hours since (with the Intel card still installed but not assigned). Thoughts? db - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org Viele Grüße Tom Müller-Kortkamp -- kommunity GmbH Co.KG - Goseriede 4, D-30159 Hannover Telefon: +49 (0)5 11 - 80 72 58 - 0 Fax: +49 (0)5 11 - 80 72 58 - 10 Mail: mailto:tmu...@kommunity.net, Web: http://www.kommunity.net USt.-IDNr.: DE 813740826; Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hannover; Registernummer: HRA 26721; Persönlich haftende Gesellschafterin: kommunity Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH vertreten durch den Geschäftsführer Tom Müller-Kortkamp; Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hannover; Registernummer: HRB 60200 Teamviewer-Support-Link: http://www.kommunity.biz - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
