On 7 Mar 2017, at 18:12, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote on 2017/03/07 08:10:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:14:44AM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
There is some comparison of DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD and two versions
of
Linux in specific network benchmark - HTTP/1.1 short lived
Maybe someone should retest and see where the problem.
It doesn't help in saying the test sucks or is done wrong.
On 9 March 2017 at 20:26, O. Hartmann wrote:
> Am Tue, 7 Mar 2017 02:14:44 +0100
> Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> schrieb:
>
> > There is some comparison of DragonflyBSD, Free
Am Tue, 7 Mar 2017 02:14:44 +0100
Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> schrieb:
> There is some comparison of DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD and two versions of
> Linux in specific network benchmark - HTTP/1.1 short lived connections.
> FreeBSD is the worst in this test.
>
> https://www.dragonflydigest.co
Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote on 2017/03/07 08:10:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:14:44AM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
There is some comparison of DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD and two versions of
Linux in specific network benchmark - HTTP/1.1 short lived connections.
FreeBSD is the worst in this test.
https
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:14:44AM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> There is some comparison of DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD and two versions of
> Linux in specific network benchmark - HTTP/1.1 short lived connections.
> FreeBSD is the worst in this test.
>
> https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2017/03/06/
There is some comparison of DragonflyBSD, FreeBSD and two versions of
Linux in specific network benchmark - HTTP/1.1 short lived connections.
FreeBSD is the worst in this test.
https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2017/03/06/19425.html
https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/1K.png
https://lea
ebruar 2016 22:50
>>> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
>>> Subject: Re: ixgbe: Network performance tuning (#TCP connections)
>>>
>>> On 2016-02-03 16:34, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>>> hi,
>>>>
>>>> can you share your testing p
To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
>> Subject: Re: ixgbe: Network performance tuning (#TCP connections)
>>
>> On 2016-02-03 16:34, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> > hi,
>> >
>> > can you share your testing program source?
>> >
>> >
>> > -a
>
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-performa...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> performa...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Allan Jude
> Sent: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 19:19
> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: ixgbe: Network performance tuning
On 2016-02-05 13:05, Meyer, Wolfgang wrote:
As I was telling in my original message, the rxd and txd values were more or
less the only ones that changed my numbers to the better when reducing them.
Not that I understood that behaviour but a double-check now revealed that I
stand corrected
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-performa...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> performa...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Allan Jude
> Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Februar 2016 22:50
> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: ixgbe: Network performance tuning
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-performa...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> performa...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of K. Macy
> Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Februar 2016 20:31
> To: Allan Jude
> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: ixgbe: Network per
mailto:owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org] On
Behalf Of Meyer, Wolfgang
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 9:37 PM
To: 'freebsd-...@freebsd.org'
Cc: 'freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.org'
Subject: ixgbe: Network performance tuning (#TCP connections)
Hello,
we are evaluating network performance
Meyer, Wolfgang
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 9:37 PM
To: 'freebsd-...@freebsd.org'
Cc: 'freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.org'
Subject: ixgbe: Network performance tuning (#TCP connections)
Hello,
we are evaluating network performance on a DELL-Server (PowerEdge R930 with 4
Sockets, h
On 02/03/16 14:37, Meyer, Wolfgang wrote:
Hello,
we are evaluating network performance on a DELL-Server (PowerEdge R930 with 4
Sockets, hw.model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-8891 v3 @ 2.80GHz) with 10
GbE-Cards. We use programs that on server side accepts connections on a
IP-address+port from
On 2016-02-03 16:34, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> hi,
>
> can you share your testing program source?
>
>
> -a
>
I have a Dual E5-2630 v3 (2x8x 2.40ghz (+HT)) with the Intel X540-AT2
that I can try to replicate this one to help debug it.
--
Allan Jude
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital si
hi,
can you share your testing program source?
-a
On 3 February 2016 at 05:37, Meyer, Wolfgang wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we are evaluating network performance on a DELL-Server (PowerEdge R930 with 4
> Sockets, hw.model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-8891 v3 @ 2.80GHz) with 10
> Gb
for investigating this). Initiallly the tests were made on 10.2
>> Release, later I switched to 10 Stable (later with ixgbe driver version
>> 3.1.0) but that didn't change the numbers.
>>
>> Some sysctl configurables were modified along the network performance
>>
On 2016-02-03 08:37, Meyer, Wolfgang wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we are evaluating network performance on a DELL-Server (PowerEdge R930 with 4
> Sockets, hw.model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-8891 v3 @ 2.80GHz) with 10
> GbE-Cards. We use programs that on server side accepts connections on
Hello,
we are evaluating network performance on a DELL-Server (PowerEdge R930 with 4
Sockets, hw.model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-8891 v3 @ 2.80GHz) with 10
GbE-Cards. We use programs that on server side accepts connections on a
IP-address+port from the client side and after establishing the
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> What OS version are you running?
>
Hi Jack,
More information about the version used:
FreeBSD 10.0-STABLE #0 r262601M
And about the igb(4) parameters common to all my tests:
hw.igb.rxd="2048"
hw.igb.txd="2048"
hw.igb.rx_process_limit="-1"
hw
What OS version are you running?
Jack
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Olivier Cochard-Labbé
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've got a new toy in my network bench lab: a SuperMicro SuperServer
> 5018A-FTN4.
> But I've got a problem for understanding and obtaining good throughput for
> "routing" or "fire
Hi all,
I've got a new toy in my network bench lab: a SuperMicro SuperServer
5018A-FTN4.
But I've got a problem for understanding and obtaining good throughput for
"routing" or "firewalling" usages.
I'm using only the embedded 4 gigabit ports of the Atom C2758 SoC.
With the default igb(4) paramet
Hi Adrian Chadd!
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:09:19 -0500; Adrian Chadd wrote about 'Re: hwpmc
granularity and 6.4 network performance':
> * Since you've changed two things - hwpmc _AND_ the kernel version -
> you can't easily conclude which one (if any!) has any influenc
A few things!
* Since you've changed two things - hwpmc _AND_ the kernel version -
you can't easily conclude which one (if any!) has any influence on
Giant showing up in your top output. I suggest recompiling without
hwpmc and seeing if the behaviour changes.
* The gprof utility expects something
Hi!
I've recently perfromed upgrade of busy production router from 6.2 to 6.4-PRE.
I have added two lines to my kernel config and did usual make buildkernel:
device hwpmc # Driver (also a loadable module)
options HWPMC_HOOKS # Other necessary kernel
Greetings Kris,
If you are still interested here is the output of pmcstat on quad core,
when acting as bridge http://89.186.204.158/hwpmc-p4-bridge.txt
With your kernel the bridge can't handle more then 400k incoming
packets, but I noticed that netisr2 is not active at all
in bridge configurat
Greetings,
Results with if_lagg, p4-kernel, dual core, two gigabit netowrk cards:
input(lagg0) output
packets errs bytespackets errs bytes colls
512412 0 30744720 218164 0 12653686 0
508765 0 30525900 218720 0
Greetings,
And will try the same benchmark on quad core processor as now numbers
of cores/cpus matter :)
That will certainly be interesting to test!
I made some tests with quad core CPU:
netstat shows:
input (em0) output
packets errs bytespackets
Greetings,
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
I'll use again hwpmc and LOCK_PROFILING to see what's going on.
And will try the same benchmark on quad core processor as now
numbers of cores/cpus
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
I'll use again hwpmc and LOCK_PROFILING to see what's going on.
And will try the same benchmark on quad core processor as now
numbers of cores/cpus matter :)
Here are promised res
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Yes, it is gone with 8.0. Disable the module builds because some of
them like this one probably need compile fixes. If you need a
subset of modules use MODULES_OVERRIDE=list (in /etc/make.conf)
Yes, ke
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
I'll use again hwpmc and LOCK_PROFILING to see what's going on.
And will try the same benchmark on quad core processor as now
numbers of cores/cpus matter :)
Here are promised results - http://89.186.204.158/lock_
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
I'll use again hwpmc and LOCK_PROFILING to see what's going on.
And will try the same benchmark on quad core processor as now
numbers of cores/cpus matter :)
Here are promised results - http://89.186.204.158/lock_profiling-8.txt
Finall
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
I'll use again hwpmc and LOCK_PROFILING to see what's going on.
And will try the same benchmark on quad core processor as now numbers
of cores/cpus matter :)
Here are promised results - http://89.186.204.158/lock_profiling-8.txt
Thanks. There is further work needed o
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Yes, it is gone with 8.0. Disable the module builds because some of
them like this one probably need compile fixes. If you need a subset
of modules use MODULES_OVERRIDE=list (in /etc/make.conf)
Yes, kernel builds.
I'm still playing wit
Greetings,
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Yes, it is gone with 8.0. Disable the module builds because some of
them like this one probably need compile fixes. If you need a subset
of modules use MODULES_OVERRIDE=list (in /etc/make.conf)
Yes, kernel builds.
I'm still
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Yes, it is gone with 8.0. Disable the module builds because some of
them like this one probably need compile fixes. If you need a subset
of modules use MODULES_OVERRIDE=list (in /etc/make.conf)
Yes, kernel builds.
I'm still playing with it, but the first res
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
http://www.freebsd.org/~kris/p4-net.tbz is a sys/ tarball from my p4
branch, which includes these and other optimizations.
I have some problems with compiling new kernel:
cc -c -O2 -frename-re
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
http://www.freebsd.org/~kris/p4-net.tbz is a sys/ tarball from my p4
branch, which includes these and other optimizations.
I have some problems with compiling new kernel:
cc -c -O2 -frename-registers -pipe -fno-stri
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
http://www.freebsd.org/~kris/p4-net.tbz is a sys/ tarball from my p4
branch, which includes these and other optimizations.
I have some problems with compiling new kernel:
cc -c -O2 -frename-registers -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -march=nocon
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
http://www.freebsd.org/~kris/p4-net.tbz is a sys/ tarball from my p4
branch, which includes these and other optimizations.
I have some problems with compiling new kernel:
cc -c -O2 -frename-registers -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -march=nocona
-std=c99 -g -Wall -W
Greetings,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Hello,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Thanks for investigating this. One thing to note is that ip
flows from
the same connection always go down the same interface, this is
because
Ethernet is not allowed to reorder frames.
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Hello,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Thanks for investigating this. One thing to note is that ip flows
from
the same connection always go down the same interface, this is
because
Ethernet is not allowed to reorder frames. The hash uses
src-mac, dst-mac, sr
Hello,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Thanks for investigating this. One thing to note is that ip flows
from
the same connection always go down the same interface, this is
because
Ethernet is not allowed to reorder frames. The hash uses
src-mac, dst-mac, src-ip and dst-ip (see la
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Thanks for investigating this. One thing to note is that ip flows from
the same connection always go down the same interface, this is because
Ethernet is not allowed to reorder frames. The hash uses
src-mac, dst-mac, src-ip and dst-ip (see lagg_hashmbuf), make sure when
per
Greetings,
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Andrew Thompson wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:26:35PM +0200, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
In my desire to increase network throughput, and to be able to
handle more then ~250-270kpps
I started experimenting with lagg and link
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Andrew Thompson wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:26:35PM +0200, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
In my desire to increase network throughput, and to be able to
handle more then ~250-270kpps
I started experimenting with lagg and link aggregation control
protocol (lacp
Andrew Thompson wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:26:35PM +0200, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
In my desire to increase network throughput, and to be able to handle more
then ~250-270kpps
I started experimenting with lagg and link aggregation control protocol
(lacp).
To my surprise this
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:26:35PM +0200, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> In my desire to increase network throughput, and to be able to handle more
> then ~250-270kpps
> I started experimenting with lagg and link aggregation control protocol
> (lacp).
> To my surprise this doesn't increas
Greetings,
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
In my desire to increase network throughput, and to be able to handle
more then ~250-270kpps
I started experimenting with lagg and link aggregation control
protocol (lacp).
To my surprise this doesn't increase the amount of packets my server
can ha
Greetings,
In my desire to increase network throughput, and to be able to handle
more then ~250-270kpps
I started experimenting with lagg and link aggregation control protocol
(lacp).
To my surprise this doesn't increase the amount of packets my server can
handle
Here is what netstat reports
Greetings,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:13:07 +0200,
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
After playing with many settings and testing various configuration, now
I'm able to to receive on bridge more then 800,000 packets/s
without errors, which is amazing!
Unfortunately the
At Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:13:07 +0200,
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> After playing with many settings and testing various configuration, now
> I'm able to to receive on bridge more then 800,000 packets/s
> without errors, which is amazing!
> Unfortunately the server behind bridge can't h
Greetings,
After playing with many settings and testing various configuration, now
I'm able to to receive on bridge more then 800,000 packets/s
without errors, which is amazing!
Unfortunately the server behind bridge can't handle more then 250,000
packets/s
Please advise how I can increase th
Greetings,
I'm trying test a bridge firewall under FreeBSD 7.
What I have as configuration is:
Freebsd7 (web server) - bridge (FreeBSD7) - gigabit switch - flooders.
Both FreeBSD servers are using FreeBSD 7.0-RC1 amd64
With netperf -l 60 -p 10303 -H 10.3.3.1 I have no problems to reach 116MB/
Hi,
On 15 juin 07, at 18:19, Sam Leffler wrote:
The best transfer rate I can achieve is 3.1 MB/s from the
powerbook to the freebsd-box, and about 2.7 MB/s from the freebsd-
box to the powerbook.
Find athstats in tools/tools/ath and figure out why you're not
seeing the expected throughput.
Patrick Proniewski wrote:
Hello,
I've setup a little WLAN at home, using my freebsd box as an access point:
- FreeBSD 6.2 (tag=RELENG_6_2)
- DLink DWL-G520 PCI card (Atheros chipset)
- hostapd configured with WPA
The "client" is a powerbook G4 (Built-in 54-Mbps Wi-Fi, certified for
802.11g and
Hello,
I've setup a little WLAN at home, using my freebsd box as an access
point:
- FreeBSD 6.2 (tag=RELENG_6_2)
- DLink DWL-G520 PCI card (Atheros chipset)
- hostapd configured with WPA
The "client" is a powerbook G4 (Built-in 54-Mbps Wi-Fi, certified for
802.11g and 802.11b interoperabili
On 15/02/07, Justin Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is definitely worst-case, it's simulating a DDoS attack at the
network. What is really surprising is that just 1mbps of traffic is able
to kill a 6.x box doing routing. If it were, say, 600mbps that I'd
understand as you're pushing o
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
Hi,
if you disable sack, what's happend?
(sysctl net.inet.tcp.sack.enable=0)
(Are Memory and cpu OK?)
For route problem you can set this to a low value, for example 10
sysctl net.inet.ip.rtexpire: 10
See
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/securing-freebsd.html
Why
This is definitely worst-case, it's simulating a DDoS attack at the
network. What is really surprising is that just 1mbps of traffic is able
to kill a 6.x box doing routing. If it were, say, 600mbps that I'd
understand as you're pushing over a million PPS. But 1mbps? :-\
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 fine, the second
> it has to make a
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 fine, the second it
has to make a routing decision everything goes out the window, it seems.
There's
On Thursday 15 February 2007 11:43 am, Justin Robertson wrote:
> Playing with these sysctl values made 0 difference - what's supposed
> to happen???
>
> Another scary discovery - if you've got 6.2 setup to route, even with
> static routes, 1Mbps of TCP SYN traffic will cause it to start droppin
ling configuration:
kern.clockrate
kern.polling.burst_max
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-pe
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
kern.polling.burst_max
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
>
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
Hello list,
I am facing with really slow network performance (nfs/ftp) under
FreeBSD 6.2-PRERELEASE with em0 NIC connected to Cisco Catalyst 2950
switch. The transfer speed is ~150-200kbps for nfs, ftp and httpd.
Here is more information about my setup:
em0: port
0xdc00-0xdc3f mem 0xfcfa
52 Uhr, schrieb Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Ingo wrote:
I`ve some problems with the network performance on my Soekris NET
4801.
(Freebsd 6.1 release-p3)
When I start "netio" on the soekris and do a "netio localhost", I get
about
8.4 MB/s
use on its loopback interface as compared to the
network interface?
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
Greetings
Am 18.09.2006, 15:52 Uhr, schrieb Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Ingo wrote:
I`ve some problems with the n
:52 Uhr, schrieb Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Ingo wrote:
I`ve some problems with the network performance on my Soekris NET 4801.
(Freebsd 6.1 release-p3)
When I start "netio" on the soekris and do a "netio localhost", I get
about
8.4 MB/
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Ingo wrote:
I`ve some problems with the network performance on my Soekris NET 4801.
(Freebsd 6.1 release-p3)
When I start "netio" on the soekris and do a "netio localhost", I get about
8.4 MB/sec, and when I start with "netio 192.168.0.11"(
Hello,
I`ve some problems with the network performance on my Soekris NET 4801.
(Freebsd 6.1 release-p3)
When I start "netio" on the soekris and do a
"netio localhost", I get about 8.4 MB/sec, and when I start
with "netio 192.168.0.11"(it´s localhost address)
76 matches
Mail list logo
