At 12:57 PM 11/30/2006, Ivan Voras wrote:
Mike Tancsa wrote:
> Yeah I inadvertently slighted the NetBSD folks by leaving them out. So
> I guess I better give them a try as well.
>
> The part that really surprises me is the drop in performance as firewall
> rules are added to RELENG_6 and above.
Mike Tancsa wrote:
> Yeah I inadvertently slighted the NetBSD folks by leaving them out. So
> I guess I better give them a try as well.
>
> The part that really surprises me is the drop in performance as firewall
> rules are added to RELENG_6 and above. Both LINUX and RELENG_4 seem to
> scale w
At 12:51 AM 11/30/2006, Nick Pavlica wrote:
Did a quick default install. Results are not so interesting since one
stream livelocks the box. Basic stats at http://www.tancsa.com/blast.html
If there are some OpenSolaris wizards out there who want me to tune,
I am happy to retest...
Mike,
I'm n
On 11/27/06, Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 02:12 PM 11/25/2006, Nick Pavlica wrote:
>>I might give OpenBSD a quick try as a reference.
>
>Mike,
> Have you done any testing on Solaris 10, or OpenSolaris? I
>understand that it has a very robust IP stack. It would be
Did a quick defa
At 03:06 AM 11/28/2006, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
FWIW I would definitively like to see it. But thanks for going so far..
Tried it with the patch branch. With the em nics, the box locks up
with 2 streams. It works now with bge, but rates are pretty slow
(220Kpps), and very slow with pf enable
At 03:28 AM 11/24/2006, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 11:52 -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> I might give OpenBSD a quick try as a reference.
That would be very interesting.
OK, I added OpenBSD to the mix as well. Results are pretty crappy
with the base default install. With one s
At 03:06 AM 11/28/2006, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:36:34 -0500
Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I added OpenBSD to the mix as well. Results are pretty crappy
> with the base default install. With one stream, the box essentially
> live locks. This was just with the
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:36:34 -0500
Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I added OpenBSD to the mix as well. Results are pretty crappy
> with the base default install. With one stream, the box essentially
> live locks. This was just with the stock kernels from the CD. The
> PCIe bge ni
At 02:12 PM 11/25/2006, Nick Pavlica wrote:
I might give OpenBSD a quick try as a reference.
Mike,
Have you done any testing on Solaris 10, or OpenSolaris? I
understand that it has a very robust IP stack. It would be
Did a quick default install. Results are not so interesting since one
st
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 05:22:16AM -0600, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 09:36:05AM +0100 I heard the voice of
> Divacky Roman, and lo! it spake thus:
> >
> > hm.. now I am confused. the rule is that having I586_CPU improves
> > performance because optimized bzero/bcopy is inc
At 02:12 PM 11/25/2006, Nick Pavlica wrote:
I might give OpenBSD a quick try as a reference.
Mike,
Have you done any testing on Solaris 10, or OpenSolaris? I
understand that it has a very robust IP stack. It would be
interesting to see how the three stack up against each other (FBSD,
LINUS,
I might give OpenBSD a quick try as a reference.
Mike,
Have you done any testing on Solaris 10, or OpenSolaris? I
understand that it has a very robust IP stack. It would be
interesting to see how the three stack up against each other (FBSD,
LINUS, SunOS).
--Nick
_
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 09:36:05AM +0100 I heard the voice of
Divacky Roman, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> hm.. now I am confused. the rule is that having I586_CPU improves
> performance because optimized bzero/bcopy is included (its not
> included if you only have I686_CPU).
Haven't we been by thi
Divacky Roman wrote:
> hm.. now I am confused. the rule is that having I586_CPU improves
> performance because optimized bzero/bcopy is included (its not
> included if you only have I686_CPU).
>
> I dont understand why the generic version is used.
I believe the consensus was that I486 line disab
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 04:18:03PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 04:03 PM 11/24/2006, Divacky Roman wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 03:27:40PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >> At 03:28 AM 11/24/2006, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 11:52 -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
At 06:40 PM 11/24/2006, Steven Hartland wrote:
Whats wrong with that web page the display is totally broken :(
Try it now.
---Mike
___
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performa
Mike Tancsa wrote:
I cvsup'd to todays kernel and re-ran some of the tests, controlling
for CPU defs in the kernel. Posted at
http://www.tancsa.com/blast.html
Statistically, I think the results are too close to say they are
different.
Whats wrong with that web page the display is totally b
At 04:03 PM 11/24/2006, Divacky Roman wrote:
I see generic_bzero/bcopy used quite often. why dont you define
cpu I586_CPU
in your kernel config?
Hi,
I cvsup'd to todays kernel and re-ran some of the tests, controlling
for CPU defs in the kernel. Posted at http://www.tancsa.com/b
At 04:03 PM 11/24/2006, Divacky Roman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 03:27:40PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 03:28 AM 11/24/2006, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
> >On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 11:52 -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >
> >> I might give OpenBSD a quick try as a reference.
> >
> >That would be very i
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 03:27:40PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 03:28 AM 11/24/2006, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
> >On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 11:52 -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >
> >> I might give OpenBSD a quick try as a reference.
> >
> >That would be very interesting.
>
> OpenBSD 4.0 i386 panics on boo
At 03:28 AM 11/24/2006, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 11:52 -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> I might give OpenBSD a quick try as a reference.
That would be very interesting.
OpenBSD 4.0 i386 panics on boot.
I also posted some results with PMC compiled into the kernel
ipfw compiled
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 11:52 -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> I might give OpenBSD a quick try as a reference.
That would be very interesting.
BTW you really did a good and very compete job, thanks!
Regards
--
Massimo.run();
___
freebsd-performance@freeb
On 11/23/06, Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 12:43 PM 11/23/2006, Vlad Galu wrote:
> Can you please completely remove the iptables support from your
>Linux configuration, as well as removing support for any packet filter
>in FreeBSD? Also, please enable fast_forwarding.
I did that a
At 12:43 PM 11/23/2006, Vlad Galu wrote:
Can you please completely remove the iptables support from your
Linux configuration, as well as removing support for any packet filter
in FreeBSD? Also, please enable fast_forwarding.
I did that a while ago. See
http://www.tancsa.com/blast.html
On 11/23/06, Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 08:09 AM 11/22/2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
>It would be interesting to know the real performance of Linux as a mere
>router if we want a true comparision with FreeBSD performances.
Re-tested, this time with a LINUX UP kernel and there is no
At 08:09 AM 11/22/2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
It would be interesting to know the real performance of Linux as a mere
router if we want a true comparision with FreeBSD performances.
Re-tested, this time with a LINUX UP kernel and there is not that
much difference in overall speeds. I added a
At 08:09 AM 11/22/2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thank you for spending that much time for benchmarking, this is really
interesting.
Hi,
More to come, and if you can think of other tests let me
know. Next is VLAN performance.
Though this is a little bit off topic, I'm quite
Hi Mike,
Thank you for spending that much time for benchmarking, this is really
interesting.
Though this is a little bit off topic, I'm quite puzzled by the fact
that having filtering rules on Linux or not doesn't change the result
much. NetFitler keeps track of *all* connections even if there a
At 12:50 AM 11/21/2006, Mike Tancsa wrote:
The table is also up at http://www.tancsa.com/blast.html which might
be easier to read
Decided to test with RELENG_4 as a comparison. Quite a difference.
With polling and fast forwarding on, I can use 2 routers to blast
through at almost 1Mpps. Eve
29 matches
Mail list logo
