[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The answer, Boris, is that the "team" has no idea what they're doing. Check out some of the threads on performance testing. They tune little pieces here and there, and break 10 other things in the process. Matt Dillon "determined" that 10,000 ints/second was "optimal". Of course if you're passing 10Kpps that means you get an interrupt for every packet. They're playing pin the tail on the donkey.
You could understand what he was saying? I wanted to help but was unsure of what he was asking. I also seem to remember that discussion you are referring too. IIRC, 10,000hz for pooling was the setting they ere talking about. But on it would very a little, and with the fxp based card polling hurt a little because the card was already ding its own thing in hardware. So that setting was redundant, it was best to leave it alone. He also seemed to say the network bandwidth was constant, and system load rose with an 64bit system. This right? If he was using GENERIC on a smp system he was only using 1 cpu with out a recompile. There is just so much that could be wrong and he gives no information on his system or settings. Doess he have 2 amd64 pcs with 2 different installs of 5.3, or a single machine that he ran both versions on? The router, is that a third machine that was an amd64 system, or something else? He says i386, but an up to date 5.3 world doesn't support 386 with out a work around. The least commom setting is now 486, but a build for 686 would be better. Did he tell you if he had polling on? So I guess it is a good thing you were able to help him, because I couldn't. Not to mention the flame bait you through out, well, that would be wrong. _______________________________________________
--------- Previous Message
No, thats not what I was talking about. They were tuning the MAX_INTS parameter for the em
driver, which can hold off interrupts to reduce system overhead. Instead of minimizing the load,
they were focused on squeezing a few extra bits out of iperf, which is not how you tune
performance. If you get 700Kb/s and have a 95% load and can get 695Kb/s with 60% load,
which is better? Plus they were testing with a regular PCI bus, so they were hitting the
wall on the bus throughput, which changes all the timings, so it was just a stupid test in
general.
I would say 60% load. Now I completely understand what you were saying.
I'm not 100% sure of what he was saying, but I've seen the same thing. I take an i386 disk
and pop on an amd64 disk with the same settings, except for the 3 or 4 required differences,
and the i386 machine has WAY less network load. So maybe your buildworld runs faster,
but the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap, so you likely have a
slower machine. I haven't seen any test that shows otherwise, just a bunch of swell
guys swearing that one thing is faster than another.
I understand that you don't want to hear the truth, so flame away. But its not going to make
things any better.
Ahh! More flame bait! I just didn't like you platitudinal and unproductive message that I believe would just drive Boris onto linux and leave a possible open problem on FreeBSD for some one else to discover latter. It's not that I don't want to hear the truth, you were just not saying anything worth his time. But atleast now we can get some where to help him and the amd64 port. I also had the idea that Boris was just trolling because he has not responded, just said FreeBSD was bad and left us to duke it out.
_______________________________________________So the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap with the amd64 build? Since I don't have a amd64 system, and you might hav access to atleast 1, how about getting a little info on the irqs? Look at systat -vmstat or vmstat -i under load? aybe report it back? I wonder if the irq rates are changing, or irqs are taking longer to service. Either there is a problem. Ofcourse some hardware info would be nice, chipset and cpu? Maybe you script vmstat -i for a log, and use netperf too?
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
I like Nick's followup. I would guese Boris may have a problem with proper hardware support. I can't really said it is bad hardware if speeds are the same, just high load(right?). Maybe the driver he is using is not good for 64bit as it is for 32bit?
I think if Boris studies the thread I like to below he will be alright.
Check this out: http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/thrd66.html http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502171636.10361.drice
Inparticular: http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19651.html http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19679.html _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
