Hi again, So I did replace the server, I have an IBM x336 now instead of the x335. The NIC is the identical, but not the same. First of all, Chris, you were absolutely right - it was some sort of a glitch with the hardware compatibility, as with this server I'm seeing a completely different behavior. I started seeing interrupt taking some of the CPU(not too much though - about 8-10% when loaded), and I don't see an emX taskq at all now. But the thing is - the problem is still there - I had a relatively high load this weekend (15kpps is my high load, remember?) and once again I got some packet loss and a slow response time from the website.
Couple of things I noticed though: When it happened, the quality RRD graph showed about 35-40ms spike (from the usual 1-2). It was that time that I checked the "Disable Hardware Checksum Offloading" option and it was back to normal within seconds. But I saw it climb few other times afterwords... So maybe it was just a coincidence. Also, if I check the interface status when there is normal traffic - there are no errors(well, no more additional errors), but the minute the load hits - I start seeing the counters climbing up. On both interfaces, but only on the "In", the out is "0". And one last thing, I was thinking about maybe enforcing the negotiation through the config.xml. So I went through it and I saw this: <wan> <if>em0</if> <mtu/> <media/> <mediaopt/> <bandwidth>100</bandwidth> <bandwidthtype>Mb</bandwidthtype> <spoofmac/> <disableftpproxy/> <ipaddr>X.X.X.X</ipaddr> <subnet>28</subnet> <gateway>Y.Y.Y.Y</gateway> </wan> <opt1> <if>em1</if> <descr>OPTICAL</descr> <bridge/> <enable/> <ipaddr>Z.Z.Z.Z</ipaddr> <subnet>29</subnet> <gateway/> <spoofmac/> <mtu/> </opt1> Is this normal, I mean regarding the 100Mb bandwidth? I have everything set to autonegotiation and the interface status shows: Media 1000baseTX <full-duplex> on both, so I assume I shouldn't touch it. But the 100Mb confuses me. Anyhow, this x336 server is a loaner and I have to return it or buy it within a day or two, so if you have any thoughts at all, please. Thanks, Lenny. On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Chris Buechler <c...@pfsense.org> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Lenny <five2one.le...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > thanks for answering, > > > > I'm using 1.2.2 ( it scares me a bit to use a non-stable version in > > production). > > > > It's stable. See: > http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=377 > > > > I do realize it might be a problem with FreeBSD rather than pfSense, > > especially that I saw a couple of related posts on the net(without > > solution). > > There's no "might be", it is. > > > > What I can't understand is how come a lot of people here talking about > > pushing 300-400kpps, and I can't even do 20?! I believe my hardware is up > to > > at least 200, don't you think? > > > > Yes, though other people in certain circumstances have hit this same > thing with stock FreeBSD, and it doesn't seem there was ever any > resolution to those, as you said. > > I suspect these scenarios are more about something to do with the > motherboard, or a BIOS quirk, or something of that nature than the > NICs themselves. Other things I would try: > > - Reset BIOS to its defaults > - Upgrade the BIOS > - try a completely different piece of hardware, even with the same NICs > > > > Unless you tell me it's all related to a kind of traffic, meaning that a > > website with a lot of small files (no more than 500KB) has hit the limit > > here. > > > > No, that's irrelevant. It has an impact on your pps rates, but you're > well under what you should be able to push. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com > For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com > > Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org > >