At 01:31 PM 11/1/2005, you wrote:
Can we please let this thread die already? I'm tired about hearing
of benchmarking the *WRONG* way.
"Must. Control. The. Fist. Of. Death."
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of
> error it should be "Can't assign requested address" or something
> similar. I guess it could be apache runtime abstraction library
does
> not report this error well enough.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pete
does
> not report this error well enough.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Zaitsev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 3:53 PM
> > To: support@pfsense.com
> > Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Network
che runtime abstraction library does
not report this error well enough.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Zaitsev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 3:53 PM
> To: support@pfsense.com
> Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Network Device pooling
ter Zaitsev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 3:53 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Network Device pooling
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 16:31 -0500, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> Are we absolutely sure this program works as intended? Personally I
> wouldn
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 16:56 -0500, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> Have you seen this?
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110887
>
> Looks like a apachebench problem to me.
This is other bug - it instantly fails in that case, it is also fixed in
2.0.48 I'm testing with 2.0.54
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 16:31 -0500, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> Are we absolutely sure this program works as intended? Personally I
> wouldn't trust anything like this but smartbits.
Well...
It works if filtering is disabled on pfsese - this is what worries me.
If the program would be broken it shou
Have you seen this? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110887
Looks like a apachebench problem to me.
Scott
On 10/31/05, Scott Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are we absolutely sure this program works as intended? Personally I
> wouldn't trust anything like this but smar
Are we absolutely sure this program works as intended? Personally I
wouldn't trust anything like this but smartbits.
Scott
On 10/31/05, Peter Zaitsev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 16:25 -0500, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> > >apr_poll: The timeout specified has expired (70007)
> >
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 16:25 -0500, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> >apr_poll: The timeout specified has expired (70007)
>
> What is the above from? Your benchmark testing box?
Yes. This is output from apache benchmark program.
Benchmarking 111.111.111.158 (be patient)
Completed 1 requests
Complete
>apr_poll: The timeout specified has expired (70007)
What is the above from? Your benchmark testing box?
On 10/31/05, Peter Zaitsev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 15:48 -0500, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> > Are you viewing the traffic queue status? This would be normal if you
>
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 15:48 -0500, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> Are you viewing the traffic queue status? This would be normal if you are...
Heh,
yes good quess. These were running in the other window.
So here is the output for "stalled" case
# pfctl -ss | wc -l
51898
I have number of states
dging enabled
which seems to show it is not bridging itself at least.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Ullrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 1:09 PM
> To: support@pfsense.com
> Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Network Device pooling
&
Are you viewing the traffic queue status? This would be normal if you are...
Scott
On 10/31/05, Peter Zaitsev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 14:39 -0500, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> > On 10/31/05, Fleming, John (ZeroChaos) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I wonder if part of the
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 14:39 -0500, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> On 10/31/05, Fleming, John (ZeroChaos) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I wonder if part of the problem is PF isn't seeing the TCP tear down. It
> > seems a little odd that the max gets hit and nothing else gets through.
> > I guess it could b
On 10/31/05, Fleming, John (ZeroChaos) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder if part of the problem is PF isn't seeing the TCP tear down. It
> seems a little odd that the max gets hit and nothing else gets through.
> I guess it could be the benchmark isn't shutting down the session right
> after it
benchmark client to have 10K(ish) of open TCP sessions.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Ullrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 1:28 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Network Device pooling
On 10/31/05, Fleming, John (ZeroChaos) <[EM
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 13:26 -0600, Fleming, John (ZeroChaos) wrote:
> Benchmarking 111.111.111.158 (be patient) Completed 1 requests <-
> isn't 10,000 the default limit of the state table? That sure would
> explain a lot.
I boosted it to 10 of course
-
On 10/31/05, Fleming, John (ZeroChaos) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Benchmarking 111.111.111.158 (be patient) Completed 1 requests <-
> isn't 10,000 the default limit of the state table? That sure would
> explain a lot.
Yep. 10K is the default and it is adjustable from the System ->
Advanced
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Network Device pooling
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 12:03 -0500, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> Please describe the hardware your using fully. NICS, etc. This is
> not normal behavior.
Sure It is Dell Poweredge 750
512MB RAM, SATA150 disk, Celeron 2.4Ghz
A
while the machine is normal and when the machine is
choking? (send the output.txt file btw)
Are you able to try this test using routing ver bridging?
-Original Message-
From: Scott Ullrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 1:09 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject:
On 10/31/05, Peter Zaitsev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 12:03 -0500, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> > Please describe the hardware your using fully. NICS, etc. This is
> > not normal behavior.
>
> Sure It is Dell Poweredge 750
> 512MB RAM, SATA150 disk, Celeron 2.4Ghz
>
> ACPI API
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 12:03 -0500, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> Please describe the hardware your using fully. NICS, etc. This is
> not normal behavior.
Sure It is Dell Poweredge 750
512MB RAM, SATA150 disk, Celeron 2.4Ghz
ACPI APIC Table:
Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0
CPU:
Please describe the hardware your using fully. NICS, etc. This is
not normal behavior.
On 10/31/05, Peter Zaitsev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 23:14 +0100, Espen Johansen wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > I have seen you have done a lot of testing with apache benchmarking.
> >
On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 23:14 +0100, Espen Johansen wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> I have seen you have done a lot of testing with apache benchmarking.
> I find it a little strange to use this as a test. Basically you will hit the
> roof of standing I/O operations because you introduce latency with pfsense.
Hi Peter,
I have seen you have done a lot of testing with apache benchmarking.
I find it a little strange to use this as a test. Basically you will hit the
roof of standing I/O operations because you introduce latency with pfsense.
The lower the latency the more finished tasks/connections per time
On 10/30/05, Peter Zaitsev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Tested this feature to see if it helps me with apache benchmark problem
> - no it does not .
>
> Also it looks like it is firewall related issue as if firewall is
> totally disabled (pf fails to load rules) everything works as
> exp
27 matches
Mail list logo
