At 02:26 AM 7/1/2008, Paul wrote:
Turning on / off fastforwarding has no effect for me. I still get
the messages.
I also get major ticks of 'destinations found unreachable' in netstat -rs
if you use
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/src/sys/netinet/ip_input.c?rev=1.332.2.1;con
Turning on / off fastforwarding has no effect for me. I still get the
messages.
I also get major ticks of 'destinations found unreachable' in netstat -rs
Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 10:34 PM 6/27/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:16:17 +0100, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you
wr
At 10:34 PM 6/27/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:16:17 +0100, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you
wrote:
>Paul wrote:
>> Get these with GRE tunnel on
>> FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE #5: Sun May 11 19:00:57 EDT
>> 2008 :/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/ROUTER amd64
>> But do n
On 7/1/08, Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/1 Sepherosa Ziehau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> > Properly configured #RX desc and timer intr interval will be required
> > to make sure that the RX desc collection could keep up with the
> > hardware speed. I used pure timer intr (800
2008/7/1 Sepherosa Ziehau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Properly configured #RX desc and timer intr interval will be required
> to make sure that the RX desc collection could keep up with the
> hardware speed. I used pure timer intr (8000Hz) on nfe(4) in dfly w/
> good result, i.e. TX/RX @linespeed wit
Dual opteron 2212, amd64 kernel, GENERIC (same setup as my 270 I just
posted except this is 64 bit and different NIC)
Intel dual port 82571 , nothing changed in sysctl except fw and fastfw
input (em0) output
packets errs bytespackets errs bytes co
Dual opteron 270
32 bit GENERIC KERNEL Nothing changed in sysctl except forwarding and ip
forwarding
Broadcom interfaces on board NIC
last pid: 11557; load averages: 1.13, 0.83,
0.48 up
0+03:24:26 21:58:38
70 processes: 6
On 7/1/08, Pyun YongHyeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 11:05:03AM +0800, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> > On 7/1/08, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > All the NIC drivers in 7 pretty much use interrupt moderation so it can
> >
> > I am not quite sure whether em(4)'s R
On 7/1/08, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been unable to even come close to livelocking the machine with the em
> driver interrupt moderation.
Yeah, system will not be livelocked. But even setting its imtimer to
4000, the overall system response is still worse than using polling
@4000 w
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 11:05:03AM +0800, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> On 7/1/08, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > All the NIC drivers in 7 pretty much use interrupt moderation so it can
>
> I am not quite sure whether em(4)'s RX interrupt moderation works as
> expected or not. But, AFAIK, n
I have been unable to even come close to livelocking the machine with
the em driver interrupt moderation.
So that to me throws polling out the window. I tried 8000hz with
polling modified to allow 1 burst and it makes no difference
in the amount of pps I can jam through.. It' seems to be lim
On 7/1/08, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All the NIC drivers in 7 pretty much use interrupt moderation so it can
I am not quite sure whether em(4)'s RX interrupt moderation works as
expected or not. But, AFAIK, nfe(4) and re(4) does not have RX
interrupt moderation. Their TX interrupt modera
0n Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:41:36PM -0400, Paul wrote:
>All the NIC drivers in 7 pretty much use interrupt moderation so it can
>never lock the machine anyway.. This effectively kills polling and it
>really no longer has any use except to be able to have a fraction of the
>c
All the NIC drivers in 7 pretty much use interrupt moderation so it can
never lock the machine anyway.. This effectively kills polling and it
really no longer has any use except to be able to have a fraction of the
cpu set aside for user space but you can do that anyway with SMP
Support (Rudy
Well it's supposed to, but it doesn't seem to do it as well as it should :>
How about copying header direct DMA from NIC into cache, then copy from
cache into output NIC after applying whatever filters/changes/etc?
Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
Dear Alex,
>OK, I setup 2 boxes on either end of
At 08:43 PM 6/30/2008, Wilkinson, Alex wrote:
0n Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 03:44:48PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>OK, I setup 2 boxes on either end of a RELENG_7 box from about May
>7th just now, to see with 2 boxes blasting across it how it would
>work. *However*, this is with no fir
Mike Tancsa wrote:
The box in the middle doing the forwarding
If I can help in any way, a topo map of the setup that you are facing
would be good. What do you have at either end. In the interest of
pushing 500kpps, I have this, if it helps with troubleshooting:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:0:0: cl
At 06:18 PM 6/30/2008, Steve Bertrand wrote:
Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 04:04 AM 6/29/2008, Paul wrote:
This is just a question but who can get more than 400k pps
forwarding performance ?
OK, I setup 2 boxes on either end of a RELENG_7 box from about May
7th just now, to see with 2 boxes blasting
Dear Steve,
I'm curious now... how do you change individual device polling via sysctl?
not via sysctl, via ifconfig:
# enable interface polling
/sbin/ifconfig em0 polling
/sbin/ifconfig em1 polling
/sbin/ifconfig em2 polling
/sbin/ifconfig em3 polling
(and via /etc/rc.local also across reboot
Dear Rudy,
I used polling in FreeBSD 5.x and it helped a bunch. I set up a new router
with 7.0 and MSI was recommended to me. (I noticed no difference when moving
from polling -> MSI, however, on 5.4 polling seemed to help a lot. What are
people using in 7.0?
polling or MSI?
if you have
At 05:05 PM 6/30/2008, Paul wrote:
With hours and days of tweaking i can't even get 500k pps :/ no
firewall no anything else..
What is your kernel config? Sysctl configs?
The only thing that makes a difference is
net.inet.ip.fastforwarding=1
My machine i'm testing on is dual opteron 2212 ,
Support (Rudy) wrote:
Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
usually interface polling is also chosen to prevent "lock-ups".
man polling
I used polling in FreeBSD 5.x and it helped a bunch. I set up a new
router with 7.0 and MSI was recommended to me. (I noticed no difference
when moving from polling -
Wilkinson, Alex wrote:
So how does one enable "ip fast forwarding" on FreeBSD ?
Not to take anything away from Ingo's response, but to inform how to add
the functionality to span across reboots, add the following line to
/etc/sysctl.conf
net.inet.ip.fastforwarding=1
Steve
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:16:29PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:11:40PM +0300, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I just noticed, that when I add em network card to bridge the checksum
> > offload is turned off.
> > I even put in my rc.conf:
> > ifconf
Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
usually interface polling is also chosen to prevent "lock-ups".
man polling
I used polling in FreeBSD 5.x and it helped a bunch. I set up a new router with 7.0 and
MSI was recommended to me. (I noticed no difference when moving from polling -> MSI,
however, on 5.4
Dear Alex,
>if possible, a ned header is created at the other network-cards-buffer
>and the ip-data is copied from network-card-buffer to network-card-buffer
>directly.
So how does one enable "ip fast forwarding" on FreeBSD ?
sysctl -w net.inet.ip.fastforwarding=1
usually interface
0n Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 03:00:31AM +0200, Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
>Dear Alex,
>
>>>OK, I setup 2 boxes on either end of a RELENG_7 box from about May
>>>7th just now, to see with 2 boxes blasting across it how it would
>>>work. *However*, this is with no fire
Dear Alex,
>OK, I setup 2 boxes on either end of a RELENG_7 box from about May
>7th just now, to see with 2 boxes blasting across it how it would
>work. *However*, this is with no firewall loaded and, I must enable
>ip fast forwarding. Without that enabled, the box just falls over.
0n Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 03:44:48PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>OK, I setup 2 boxes on either end of a RELENG_7 box from about May
>7th just now, to see with 2 boxes blasting across it how it would
>work. *However*, this is with no firewall loaded and, I must enable
>ip fast
Dear Paul,
I am getting this message with normal routing.
say...
em0 10.1.1.1/24
em1 10.2.2.1/24
using a box 10.1.1.2 on em0
and having another box on 10.2.2.2 on em1
I send packet from 10.1.1.2 which goes through em0 and has a route to
10.2.2.2 out em1 of course and I get MASSIVE RTM_MISS
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:18:43PM -0700, Eugene M. Kim wrote:
> Than you! The new patch fixed the problem. I'll put it under test for
> a few more days and let you know if any regression is seen.
>
Cool, thanks for testing!
> Cheers,
> Eugene
>
> Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun
I am getting this message with normal routing.
say...
em0 10.1.1.1/24
em1 10.2.2.1/24
using a box 10.1.1.2 on em0
and having another box on 10.2.2.2 on em1
I send packet from 10.1.1.2 which goes through em0 and has a route to
10.2.2.2 out em1 of course and I get MASSIVE RTM_MISS messages but
On Sunday 29 June 2008 01:02:49 pm Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 May 2008, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> > Just as a reminder, we've just about reached the one month date before
> > IFF_NEEDSGIANT drivers are disabled in the build. You can find a
> > description of the general problem and lis
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:16:29PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:11:40PM +0300, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I just noticed, that when I add em network card to bridge the checksum
> > offload is turned off.
> > I even put in my rc.conf:
> > ifconf
Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 04:04 AM 6/29/2008, Paul wrote:
This is just a question but who can get more than 400k pps forwarding
performance ?
OK, I setup 2 boxes on either end of a RELENG_7 box from about May 7th
just now, to see with 2 boxes blasting across it how it would work.
*However*, th
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Eugene M. Kim wrote:
Hi,
A quick question: Is bridge(4) supposed /not/ to automatically configure an
IPv6 link-local address?
yes there is a check for this in the code and if remoed (tried that
lately) more things go wrong.
I'm trying to use it to bridge a wired segment
With hours and days of tweaking i can't even get 500k pps :/ no firewall
no anything else..
What is your kernel config? Sysctl configs?
My machine i'm testing on is dual opteron 2212 , with intel 2 port
82571 nic.. Using 7-STABLE and I tried 6-stable and -current
I get the RTM_MISS with 7 and
Hello,
A quick question: Is bridge(4) supposed /not/ to automatically configure
an IPv6 link-local address?
I'm trying to use it to bridge a wired segment and a wireless segment,
and router advertisement over bridge0 wouldn't work because, with
bridge0 lacking a LL address, the router uses a
At 04:04 AM 6/29/2008, Paul wrote:
This is just a question but who can get more than 400k pps
forwarding performance ?
OK, I setup 2 boxes on either end of a RELENG_7 box from about May
7th just now, to see with 2 boxes blasting across it how it would
work. *However*, this is with no firewa
Than you! The new patch fixed the problem. I'll put it under test for
a few more days and let you know if any regression is seen.
Cheers,
Eugene
Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 01:17:27AM -0700, Eugene M. Kim wrote:
> Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> >I've updated patch again. There w
>
> Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
>
> > But once I brought it all up, I got :
> >
> > kernel: nd6_lookup: failed to add route for a
> > neighbor(2001:0470:0007:0028::0001), errno=17
>
> With your exact configuration between two 7.0 boxes, I see no indication
> of this error whatsoever, with t
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
But once I brought it all up, I got :
kernel: nd6_lookup: failed to add route for a
neighbor(2001:0470:0007:0028::0001), errno=17
With your exact configuration between two 7.0 boxes, I see no indication
of this error whatsoever, with the /128 prefix.
Synopsis: connect() function loops indefinitely
Responsible-Changed-From-To: gavin->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: gavin
Responsible-Changed-When: Mon Jun 30 11:36:12 UTC 2008
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to maintainers.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=124160
___
Paul wrote:
The higher I set the buffer the worse it is.. 256 and 512 I get about
50-60k more pps than i do with 2048 or 4096.. You
would think it would be the other way around but obviously there is
some contention going on. :/
Looks like in bridge mode hw.em.rxd=512 and hw.em.txd=512 yields
Current FreeBSD problem reports
Critical problems
Serious problems
S Tracker Resp. Description
o kern/27474 net[ipf] [ppp] Interactive use of user PPP and ipfilter c
o kern/35442 net[sis]
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:11:40PM +0300, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I just noticed, that when I add em network card to bridge the checksum
> offload is turned off.
> I even put in my rc.conf:
> ifconfig_em0="rxcsum up"
> ifconfig_em1="rxcsum up"
> but after reboot both em0 an
Greetings,
I just noticed, that when I add em network card to bridge the checksum
offload is turned off.
I even put in my rc.conf:
ifconfig_em0="rxcsum up"
ifconfig_em1="rxcsum up"
but after reboot both em0 and em1 have this feature disabled.
Is this expected behavior? Should I care about csum
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Robert Watson wrote:
An FYI on the state of things here: in the last month, John has updated a
number of device drivers to be MPSAFE, and the USB work remains in-flight.
I'm holding fire a bit on disabling IFF_NEEDSGIANT while things settle and I
catch up on driver state,
48 matches
Mail list logo
