Sack was never enabled, the packets in the flood had sack set.
rtmaxcache was default, what made you think I had changed it? I was not
running SMP, as I explained.
More over suggestions to do ether.ipfw result in terrible performance,
etc. A 4.11 bridge and 4.11 router in series move all
Freddie Cash wrote:
On Thursday 15 February 2007 01:29 pm, Justin Robertson wrote:
Send a flood of 60 byte syn packets with the tcp sack option thru
it and check out what happens. It's pretty weird and I can't explain
why. If you block the packets on the box via ipfw it's fin
indow, it seems.
There's 100% packet loss on all protocols. I'm not using NAT, there are
real IPs in different C classes on the other side of the box.
Freddie Cash wrote:
On Thursday 15 February 2007 11:43 am, Justin Robertson wrote:
Playing with these sysctl values made 0 difference -
l be using 4.11 for a
while. ;P
Justin Robertson wrote:
Clockrate is based off of my device_polling setup, which is
configured to 4000. burst_max has a hard limit, can't go higher than
it already is at 1000
Could I get an explanation as to what the queue and isr sysctl values
are act
x
increase for high rate of small packets on GE
Alessandro
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 01:37:00 -0800
From: Justin Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 6.x, 4.x ipfw/dummynet pf/altq - network performance issues
To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECT
It was suggested I post this to freebsd-performance, it's already in
questions, isp, and net.
I've been running some tests with using FreeBSD to filter and rate limit
traffic. My first thoughts were to goto the latest stable release, which
was 6.1 at the time. I've since done the same test un
