Allan Jude wrote this message on Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 17:57 -0500: > On 2015-11-12 12:56, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > Allan Jude wrote this message on Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:15 -0500: > >> On 2015-11-11 19:06, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > >>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 01:32:27PM -0800, Bryan Drewery wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 11/10/2015 1:42 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > >>>>> I would also like to remove the NONE cipher > >>>>> patch, which is also available in the port (off by default, just like in > >>>>> base). > >>>> > >>>> Fun fact, it's been broken in the port for several months with no > >>>> complaints. It was just reported and fixed upstream in the last day and > >>>> I wrote in a similar fix in the port. That speaks a lot about its usage > >>>> in the port currently. > >>> > >>> I am try using NPH/NONE with base ssh and confused: don't see > >>> performance rise, too complex to enable and too complex for use. > >> > >> I did a few quick (and dirty) benchmarks and it shows that the NONE > >> cipher definitely makes a difference. Version of OpenSSL also seems to > >> make a difference, as one might expect. > >> > >> Note: openssh from ports seems to link against both base and ports > >> libcrypto, I am still trying to make sure this isn't corrupting my > >> benchmark results. > > > > You don't need the aesni.ko module loaded for OpenSSL (which is how > > OpenSSH uses most crypto algos) to use AES-NI.. > > > > Also, do you set any sysctl's to play w/ the buffer sizes or anything? > > > >> I am still debugging my dummynet setup to be able to prove that HPN > >> makes a difference (but it does). > > > > Does my example on the page not work for you? > > > >> https://wiki.freebsd.org/SSHPerf > > > > I found that when I set even 5ms of delay with dummynet, bandwidth over > the LAN drops more than it should. Dummynet is limiting the rate rather > than just adding the delay. I am investigating. > > I found this document: > http://www.cs.unc.edu/~jeffay/dirt/FAQ/hstcp-howto.pdf > > Which is from the 6.x era, but suggests: > > "One subtle bug exists in the stock Dummynet implementation that should > be corrected for experiments. When a packet arrives in dummynet it is > shoved into a queue which limits the bandwidth a TCP flow may use. Upon > exit from the queue, the packet is transferred to a pipe where it sits > for any configured amount of delay time and might possibly be dropped > depending on the loss probability. Once the delay time has passed, the > packet is released to ip output." > > May be the cause of my problem
Ahhh, probably need to adjust: net.inet.ip.dummynet.pipe_byte_limit: 1048576 net.inet.ip.dummynet.pipe_slot_limit: 100 But even w/ the above limits and 5ms, you should still be able to push 200MB/sec... -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not." _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"