For this situation, you can run "netstat -m" to see if there is mbuf outage.
Attached is a shell script to watch mbuf usage in 1 second interval.
If you see the maximum-used (peak) count reach (or close) to the "max",
and the cur count changes dramatically during your test, you then may have
memo
Mailing Lists"
; "Arne Woerner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit
OxY wrote:
what kind of details should i attach? to analyze the problem?
Assume that you have process A to cause p
OxY wrote:
what kind of details should i attach? to analyze the problem?
Assume that you have process A to cause process B dropping packets:
Step (1):
Run B only -- what is the maximum through without packet drop?
what is the CPU utilization?
what type of t
TECTED]>
Cc: "FreeBSD Mailing Lists"
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit
___
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pe
OxY wrote:
what kind of details should i attach? to analyze the problem?
Host and peer packet statistics, cabling specs.
What measures have you taken to exclude cable, peer or duplex mismatch
problems?
--
Sten Daniel Sørsdal
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
"Arne Woerner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit
Lucas Holt wrote:
On Mar 24, 2006, at 8:12 AM, OxY wrote:
hi guys!
well, i changed my motherboard and CPU from the
asus a7v8x+amd 2000+ xp to
Lucas Holt wrote:
On Mar 24, 2006, at 8:12 AM, OxY wrote:
hi guys!
well, i changed my motherboard and CPU from the
asus a7v8x+amd 2000+ xp to
the abit be7 + p4 2.4 (533fsb) and the packet loss fell down from
8% to 2%, but
still have loss...
loss coming when i have load.. i guess it decr
On Mar 24, 2006, at 8:12 AM, OxY wrote:
hi guys!
well, i changed my motherboard and CPU from the
asus a7v8x+amd 2000+ xp to
the abit be7 + p4 2.4 (533fsb) and the packet loss fell down from
8% to 2%, but
still have loss...
loss coming when i have load.. i guess it decreased because of the
, hints, everything :)
- Original Message -
From: Jin Guojun [VFFS]
To: Arne Woerner
Cc: Gary Thorpe ; freebsd-performance@freebsd.org ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit
Arne Woerner
Gary Thorpe wrote:
[No subject in first one, sorry for repost]
...
1.6 Gb/s = system bus bandwidth. Cache won't affect this bandwidth. DDR400 has
400 MB/s: only attainable for long sequential accesses of either read or write
but not a mix of both. DMA should be able to get near this limit (lon
[No subject in first one, sorry for repost]
Jin Guojun [VFFS] wrote:
> You are fast away from the real world. This has been explained million
> times, just like
> I teach intern student every summer :-)
>
> First of all, DDR400 and 200 MHz bus mean nothing -- A DDR 266 + 500MHz
> CPU system
> ca
Chris Howells wrote:
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 18:52, Arne Woerner wrote:
It is an ECS K7VMM or K7VMM+ if I recall it correctly... Bought in
2003...
Is it easy to explain, why the 266FSB cannot do 8Gbit/sec without
problem? I mean: 2*133MHz*32bit=8.3125Gbit/sec... Is the MMU too
slow (e.
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 18:52, Arne Woerner wrote:
> It is an ECS K7VMM or K7VMM+ if I recall it correctly... Bought in
> 2003...
>
> Is it easy to explain, why the 266FSB cannot do 8Gbit/sec without
> problem? I mean: 2*133MHz*32bit=8.3125Gbit/sec... Is the MMU too
> slow (e. g. due to "cheap"
Arne Woerner wrote:
Notice that your memory copy speed will be one half of it.
Why "half"? dd causes two copies but counts each byte just once...
Maybe "dd" in combination with /dev/zero is not the right way to
measure memory bandwidth?
It depends on how /dev/null implemented. It m
Arne Woerner wrote:
It depends on how you use /dev/zero.
dd of=/dev/null if=/dev/zero bs=4k count=100k
tests cache speed
% dd of=/dev/null if=/dev/zero bs=4k count=100k
102400+0 records in
102400+0 records out
419430400 bytes transferred in 0.204511 secs (2050894814
bytes/sec)
ab
Arne Woerner wrote:
--- "Jin Guojun [VFFS]" [1]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In you example:
Now your 1.6 GB/s reduced to 16MB/s or even worse just based
on this factor.
What did we show by this <> test? I thought
that would prove the memory bandwidth is about 8Gbit/sec
(1GByte/sec; 2 * /2^3
--- "Jin Guojun [VFFS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even after your program finished, you had only 277 MB/s (DDR
memory?),
> which is far below a good motherboard. Good motherboards should
> have 500 - 900 MB/s memory bandwidth, while expensive
motherboards
> can have 1-3 GB/s memory bandwidth, wh
--- "Jin Guojun [VFFS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Arne Woerner wrote:
>> What did we show by this <> test? I
thoughtthat
>> would prove the memory bandwidth is about 8Gbit/sec(1GByte/sec;
>> 2 * >number>/2^30).
>>
> It depends on how you use /dev/zero.
> dd of=/dev/null if=/dev/zero bs=4k cou
--- "Jin Guojun [VFFS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In you example:
> Now your 1.6 GB/s reduced to 16MB/s or even worse just based
> on this factor.
>
What did we show by this <> test? I thought
that would prove the memory bandwidth is about 8Gbit/sec
(1GByte/sec; 2 * /2^30).
But I can see what u m
You are fast away from the real world. This has been explained million
times, just like
I teach intern student every summer :-)
First of all, DDR400 and 200 MHz bus mean nothing -- A DDR 266 + 500MHz
CPU system
can over perform a DDR 400 + 1.7 GHz CPU system. Another example:
I 2 CPU wa
Jin Guojun [VFFS] wrote:
> OxY wrote:
>
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Jin Guojun [VFFS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "OxY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 4:05 AM
>> Subject: Re:
OxY wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Jin Guojun [VFFS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OxY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit
First let's clear the notat
- Original Message -
From: "Jin Guojun [VFFS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OxY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit
OxY wrote:
- Original Message - F
ED]>
To: "OxY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ;
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, OxY wrote:
Hi,
Just on a hunch, can you try putting the card in a different PCI
slot? There may be interrupt routi
OxY wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Jin Guojun (VFFS)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OxY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Chuck Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / mar
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, OxY wrote:
Hi,
Just on a hunch, can you try putting the card in a different PCI slot?
There may be interrupt routing issues.
okay, i will try it in a couple days
the card also has a sysctl for intr moderation. See man 4 sk. The
default changed with Pyun's updated driv
i changed sk to em.
how could i measure speed or benchmark the network performance?
- Original Message -
From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OxY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ;
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: packet drop with
On Mar 18, 2006, at 5:44 AM, OxY wrote:
hi!
i had the packet drop problem with the marwell yukon gigabitcard:
(system is an amd 2000+xp, 512mb ram, fbsd 6.0-p5)
when the apache ran, with no http, just used to share files and the
traffic was
2-2,5MB/S i had 14-17% packet drop on the gigabi
okay, i will try it in a couple days
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OxY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ;
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit
On Mar 18, 2006,
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006, OxY wrote:
> i increased hz from 2000 to 5000, now the packet loss is decreased
> from 5-6% to 0.6-0,8% !!!
> huge improve!
> should i increase hz more?
won't increasing HZ over 1000 break TCP support? from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on freebsd-pf@:
#v+
> So it's not that far off,
OxY wrote:
CPU utilization is 0% if apache is not running and 10-20%, when
running and
serving 30-40 concurrent downloads (traffic is 3-4MB/s on fxp0 interface)
Is the number 3-4MB/s for per stream or the total for all 30-40 streams?
Are these downloads sent to a disk?
i measured the networ
- Original Message -
From: "Sten Spans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Arne Woerner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "OxY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit
On
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Arne Woerner wrote:
--- OxY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
but the udp drop came out (10-15%) when i stopped apache (all
tcp traffic) and initiated a local disk-to-disk file copy to
make some
load.
Ok... That lets my idea look wrong... :-))
Then it might be the main board
out
1048576000 bytes transferred in 2.193038 secs (478138497 bytes/sec)
- Original Message -
From: "Arne Woerner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OxY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / ma
--- OxY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but the udp drop came out (10-15%) when i stopped apache (all
> tcp traffic) and initiated a local disk-to-disk file copy to
make some
> load.
>
Ok... That lets my idea look wrong... :-))
Then it might be the main board like somebody else wrote some
minutes ag
rch 19, 2006 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit
--- OxY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i have an ABIT BE7
(http://www.abit.com.tw/page/uk/motherboard/motherboard_detail.php?pMODEL_NAME=BE7&fMTYPE=Socket%20478&pPRODINFO=Specifications)
resting somew
--- OxY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i have an ABIT BE7
>
(http://www.abit.com.tw/page/uk/motherboard/motherboard_detail.php?pMODEL_NAME=BE7&fMTYPE=Socket%20478&pPRODINFO=Specifications)
> resting somewhere, could it improve the network performance
> with a P4-2.4GHZ(533FSB)?
>
Maybe some udp pack
- Original Message -
From: "Jin Guojun (VFFS)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OxY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Chuck Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabi
have 0% packet drop, when my
machine is totally idle.
- Original Message -
From: "Jin Guojun [VFFS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OxY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Chuck Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 1:49 AM
Subject: Re:
rform a solution.
Jin
- Original Message -
From: "OxY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chuck Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit
currently i use HZ=2000
here&#
Message -
From: "Chuck Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OxY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit
OxY wrote:
i increased hz from 2000 to 5000, now the packet loss i
OxY wrote:
> i increased hz from 2000 to 5000, now the packet loss is decreased
> from 5-6% to 0.6-0,8% !!!
> huge improve!
Good deal.
> should i increase hz more?
Experiment. :-) Keep track of the numbers you get, and post a summary once
you've had a day or two to shake things down.
--
-Chu
rch 18, 2006 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit
currently i use HZ=2000
here's the output of netstat -i, -s, and vmstat -i :
(currently i am uploading on the gigabit with ftp, 3 threads)
Field root# vmstat -i
interrupt
16384 129622061 0 129622061 0
0
netstat -s is here:
http://field.hu/netstat.txt
- Original Message -
From: "Chuck Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OxY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 1:37 PM
Subjec
--- OxY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i measured iperf performance, and it showed that the packet drop
> is depending on the system load..
>
I have something similar here, I think:
When my CPU throttles to 1/16 (due to powerd) I get "vr0: rx
packet lost" messages (while I transfer with about 10Mbit
OxY wrote:
> yeah, i googled these settings, but i put them back to default then!
> i measured iperf performance, and it showed that the packet drop is
> depending on the system load..
If you are using the normal interrupt-driven configuration, you should look at
netstat -i, -s, and vmstat -i. If
OTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: packet drop with intel gigabit / marwell gigabit
OxY wrote:
hi!
i had the packet drop problem with the marwell yukon gigabitcard:
(system is an amd 2000+xp, 512mb ram, fbsd 6.0-p5)
Hi--
The changes you've made in tun
OxY wrote:
> hi!
>
> i had the packet drop problem with the marwell yukon gigabitcard:
> (system is an amd 2000+xp, 512mb ram, fbsd 6.0-p5)
Hi--
The changes you've made in tuning the sysctls are unreasonable on a machine with
only 512 MB of RAM; in particular:
> net.inet.tcp.inflight.max=107372
hi!
i had the packet drop problem with the marwell yukon gigabitcard:
(system is an amd 2000+xp, 512mb ram, fbsd 6.0-p5)
when the apache ran, with no http, just used to share files and the traffic was
2-2,5MB/S i had 14-17% packet drop on the gigabit interface..
with the sysctl i succesfully pull
49 matches
Mail list logo
