On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:47:02AM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 11/10/10 12:04, Eugene Perevyazko wrote:
CPU is e5...@2.4ghz, 8 cores, irqs bound to different cores skipping HT
ones.
Unless you need the CPU cores for other tasks on the server, they won't
help you with network throughput
Hi,
I have a curious problem I'm hoping someone can help with or at least
educate me on.
I have several large Linux clusters and for each one we hide the compute
nodes behind a head node using NAT. Historically, this has worked very well
for us and any time a NAT gateway (the head node) reboots
Hi,
I have a curious problem I'm hoping someone can help with or at least
educate me on.
I have several large Linux clusters and for each one we hide the compute
nodes behind a head node using NAT. Historically, this has worked very well
for us and any time a NAT gateway (the head node) reboots
On 11/10/2010 04:15, Randy Bush wrote:
bjoern zeeb just received the itojun award. congratulations, bjoern.
and than you for all the hard work on the ipv6 stack.
randy
For this not understanding what this is or what its about:
http://www.isoc.org/awards/itojun/
Where you will find Bjoern
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:49:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Kirill Yelizarov ykir...@yahoo.com
--- On Thu, 11/11/10, Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net wrote:
From: Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net
Subject: Re: icmp packets on em larger than 1472 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
To: Wilkinson, Alex
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:49:52PM +0200, Eugene Perevyazko wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:47:02AM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 11/10/10 12:04, Eugene Perevyazko wrote:
Tried 2 queues and 1 queue per iface, neither hitting cpu limit.
Are you sure you are not hitting the CPU limit on
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 08:08:25AM +0100, Yamagi Burmeister wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:34:21PM -0800, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:01:36PM +0100, Yamagi Burmeister wrote:
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
No,
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 08:05:40PM +0200, Eugene Perevyazko wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:49:52PM +0200, Eugene Perevyazko wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:47:02AM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 11/10/10 12:04, Eugene Perevyazko wrote:
Tried 2 queues and 1 queue per iface, neither
The driver already handles the pinning, you shouldnt need to mess with it.
MSIX interrupts start at 256, the igb driver uses one vector per queue,
which
is an TX/RX pair. The driver creates as many queues as cores up to a max
of 8.
Jack
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Eugene Perevyazko
Hello,
i am new in this Maillist and i use an ML370G4 with FreeBSD 8.1 AMD64. I
try with netio and TCP. The used Nics are onboard Broadcom
(PCI-X133Mhz), an Broadcom PCI-X Nic and an intel PCI-X Nic. The CPU
load is around 35% and the performance like this:
Packet size 1k bytes: 99303
On 11/11/10 6:36 AM, Christopher Penney wrote:
Hi,
I have a curious problem I'm hoping someone can help with or at least
educate me on.
I have several large Linux clusters and for each one we hide the compute
nodes behind a head node using NAT. Historically, this has worked very well
for us
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Hartmut Brandt hartmut.bra...@dlr.de wrote:
VSI, probably, was to verbose, and didn't make myself clear enough. For now,
VSfrom network admin point of view, it's 3 problems:
VS1) No ARP support
The ARP table should be there. It may be that it got 'lost' with
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 08:10:57AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:49:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Kirill Yelizarov ykir...@yahoo.com
--- On Thu, 11/11/10, Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net wrote:
From: Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net
Subject: Re: icmp packets on em
From: Pyun YongHyeon pyu...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:04:36 -0800
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 08:10:57AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:49:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Kirill Yelizarov ykir...@yahoo.com
--- On Thu, 11/11/10, Kevin Oberman
Hello YongHyeon,
yes, booth Test-Servers are in idle State, no Disk activity and no
important Networktraffic.
the pciconf -lcbv for the Nics:
e...@pci0:7:1:0: class=0x02 card=0x00db0e11 chip=0x10108086 rev=0x01
hdr=0x00
vendor = 'Intel Corporation'
device = 'Dual Port
here is the pciconf for the onboard Nic
b...@pci0:7:3:0:class=0x02 card=0x00cb0e11 chip=0x16c714e4
rev=0x10 hdr=0x00
vendor = 'Broadcom Corporation'
device = 'BCM5703A3 NetXtreme Gigabit Ethernet'
class = network
subclass = ethernet
bar [10] =
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:44:31PM +, r...@reckschwardt.de wrote:
Hello YongHyeon,
yes, booth Test-Servers are in idle State, no Disk activity and no
important Networktraffic.
the pciconf -lcbv for the Nics:
e...@pci0:7:1:0: class=0x02 card=0x00db0e11 chip=0x10108086 rev=0x01
Howdy,
After some excellent comments from Bjoern I've put together the following patch:
http://people.freebsd.org/~gnn/head-arpqueue4.diff
Please review and comment.
Best,
George
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
On 11/12/10 07:39, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 11/11/10 6:36 AM, Christopher Penney wrote:
Hi,
I have a curious problem I'm hoping someone can help with or at least
educate me on.
I have several large Linux clusters and for each one we hide the compute
nodes behind a head node using NAT.
On 12.11.2010 03:29, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
On 11/12/10 07:39, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 11/11/10 6:36 AM, Christopher Penney wrote:
Hi,
I have a curious problem I'm hoping someone can help with or at least
educate me on.
I have several large Linux clusters and for each one we hide the
Hi,
Gabor Radnai (gabor.rad...@gmail.com) [10.11.11 23:22] wrote:
pciconf:
n...@pci0:0:20:0:class=0x068000 card=0x816a1043 chip=0x026910de rev=0xa3
hdr=0x00
vendor = 'NVIDIA Corporation'
device = 'MCP51 Network Bus Enumerator'
class = bridge
r...@pci0:1:0:0:
21 matches
Mail list logo
