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
>
>
