On 9/7/07, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do want to point out that interrupt coalescing also has its draw > backs. Many people discussed all the good things so lets underscore the > bad. Networks that have trickling amounts of packets are hurt by > coalescing. Most notably are interactive things like typing in ftp and > ssh. Since the card is going to collect several packets you basically > always hit the coalescing timer slowing the overall throughput down to > whatever your timeout is. > > The big issue with coalescing is that it is good for some loads and bad > for others. So if you can't predict your load it will either hurt you > or help you. So far I have never seen a heuristic that works well both > ways. > > Also what I have seen is that coalescing always hurts disk IO > performance. Every time I tinkered with this it had a negative impact. > The caveat here is that NICs generate interrupts at a completely > different order of magnitude. > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 02:31:15AM +0000, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: > > hello misc@ > > from the page http://www.openbsd.org/42.html , one of the changes made > > to OpenBSD 4.2 is > > > > A change in the way the kernel random pool is stirred greatly > > increases performance with network interface cards that support > > interrupt mitigation, especially on architectures where reading the > > clock is expensive (such as amd64). > > > > What would be some Examples of Network Cards that Support "interrupt > > mitigation" > > > > I guess on this Subject I need educated because I am not all together > > sure what interrupt mitigation is and why I want it. > > > > > > Thank you for another GREAT release > > > > Sam Fourman Jr. > > >
Thank you Everyone for your response, the information was very helpful Sam Fourman Jr.
