th the ATA driver - Sparc/Alpha
getting the worse of it!
If anyone has ideas/brainwaves/etc - I'm willing to give it a whirl!
Thanks in advance.
Dan.
___
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-p
n that tcp.inflight is selectively
> disabled by default for low latency (LAN) connections.
I am using -CURRENT here, disabling net.inet.tcp.inflight improves the
download rate by 2MB/s!
How old is that CURRENT? I believe that shouldn't happen after Andre's
commit back in March
threshold. Inflight doesn't make sense on a LAN as it has
trouble figuring out the maximal bandwidth because of the coarse
tick granularity.
The sysctl net.inet.tcp.inflight.rttthresh specifies the threshold
in milliseconds below which inflight will disengage. It defaults
to 10m
t not long ago and following Robert's
tip setting net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable=0 yielded better results.
--
Joao Barros
___
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
On 11/11/05, Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 08:54 AM 11/11/2005, Joao Barros wrote:
> >Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project.
> >Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
> > The Regents of the University of Cali
On 11/11/05, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Joao Barros wrote:
>
> > I tried using a single drive, an IDE and a SCSI-2 and on 2 machines at
> > work both with a RAID1. Even better, there is a part in my initial email
> > where I
ou can try
> R/W performances from/to it, without using amr(4), both with 4BSD and
> ULE.
I tried using a single drive, an IDE and a SCSI-2 and on 2 machines at
work both with a RAID1.
Even better, there is a part in my initial email where I mention that
having a 700MB file cached (iost
light.enable on the other hand had a huge impact! With the file
cached I've gone from flat 5.5MB/s up to also flat 7.2MB/s
It's an improvement but there is still a difference up to those
theoretical 12.5MB/s on a 100mbit link
--
Joao Barros
___
fre
On 11/10/05, Joao Barros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/10/05, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> >
> > > I have done many tests to try to determine the poor performance on my
> > > systems (Fre
On 11/9/05, Arkadi Shishlov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joao Barros wrote:
> > On a P4 3.06GHz with HTT enabled and ULE I get the same results.
> > I get a flat line at 58% looking at the bandwith in task manager on a
> > Windows 2003 Server while doing a cached r
On 11/9/05, Michael Vince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joao Barros wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >Last month I started a thread[1] on current@ about this, but I guess I
> >should have done it here, my apologies for that.
> >
> >After my initial post I did s
On 11/9/05, Joao Barros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/9/05, Jeremie Le Hen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi, Joao,
> >
> > > Last month I started a thread[1] on current@ about this, but I guess I
> > > should have done it here, my apologies for
hines have cpu, IO and mbufs to spare and they still can't use
them. Why?
[1] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2005-October/057116.html
--
Joao Barros
___
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailma
13 matches
Mail list logo
