Re: fxp performance with POLLING
Pete French wrote: 1 megabit = 106 = 1,000,000 bits which is equal to 125,000 bytes. you are assuming eight bits per byte - but this is a serial line so you should use ten bits per byte instead. -pete. That was a rule of thumb in the heyday of async serial lines, which used a start and stop bit per byte. However, ethernet at 100Mbit is 4B5B coded at a 125mhz rate. So the raw synchronous data rate really is 12.5Mbytes/s. Minus the sync preamble of 8 bytes per packet and the mandatory inter-frame-gap of 12 bytes that's a physical layer rate of (12.5M * (1500/(1500+20))) or 12.34Mbyte/s. Even in the later days of modems this rule applied less and less, because the modulation schemes became synchronous. Joe Koberg joe_at_osoft_dot_us ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fxp performance with POLLING
However, ethernet at 100Mbit is 4B5B coded at a 125mhz rate. So the raw synchronous data rate really is 12.5Mbytes/s. Minus the sync preamble of 8 bytes per packet and the mandatory inter-frame-gap of 12 bytes that's a physical layer rate of (12.5M * (1500/(1500+20))) or 12.34Mbyte/s. You need add Ethernet header (14 bytes) + CRC (4 bytes). This means you have a maximum data rate, assuming 1500 byte MTU, of 12.5M * 1500/1538 = 12.19 Mbyte/s. And for those used to powers of two, M here means one million, not 1048576. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fxp performance with POLLING
That was a rule of thumb in the heyday of async serial lines, which used a start and stop bit per byte. However, ethernet at 100Mbit is 4B5B coded at a 125mhz rate. So the raw Errr, 4B5B *is* 10 bits per byte surely? Even in the later days of modems this rule applied less and less, because the modulation schemes became synchronous. Gig ether is mainly 8B10, as is Firewire, SATA, FibreChannel and a load of others I can't remember off the top of my head. I wouldn't stay it's a hard and fast rule, but it still gives a better estimate than dividing by eight which is what people naiively do. Mind you, it assumes that you know the real bit rate, which in the case of 100baseT is, as you say, actualy 125mbits/sec. -pete. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fxp performance with POLLING
Pete French wrote: However, ethernet at 100Mbit is 4B5B coded at a 125mhz rate. So the raw Errr, 4B5B *is* 10 bits per byte surely? ... Gig ether is mainly 8B10, as is Firewire, SATA, FibreChannel and a Mind you, it assumes that you know the real bit rate, which in the case of 100baseT is, as you say, actualy 125mbits/sec. You are right. It definitely is 10 bits per byte clocked at a higher rate. I guess the 100mbit/s rate is so strongly associated with the technology that I glossed right over that. Joe ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fxp performance with POLLING
Alfred Perlstein wrote: * Bartosz Stec [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081003 07:23] wrote: Hello again :) With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it normal? FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Sat Sep 6 01:52:12 CEST 2008 fxp0: Intel 82801DB (ICH4) Pro/100 Ethernet port 0xc800-0xc83f mem 0xe1021000-0xe1021fff irq 20 at device 8.0 on pci1 # ifconfig fxp0 fxp0: flags=9843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,LINK0,MULTICAST metric 0 mtu 1500 options=8VLAN_MTU ether 00:20:ed:42:87:13 inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active BTW overall SAMBA performance still sucks on 7.1-pre as much as on RELENG_5 ...:( - 7.5 MB/s peak. 7.5MB is 75% effeciency of a 100mbit card. Not amazing, but not sucks. Where do you see faster performance? Between windows machines on the same hardware or linux server? It sucks because it is a peak performance. About 5-6 MB/s average. I tried polling only because I found some suggestions on mailing lists, that it could improve performance with SAMBA on FreeBSD. As you see at the top of this thread - not in my case :) I also tried sysctl tunings, and smb.conf settings, also suggested on maling lists, with no or very little improvements noticed. Most of suggestions unfortunately end with change OS to Linux if you want to use SAMBA. I think I will try to change NIC to 1Gbit - hope that helps :) Or maybe there's some FreeBSD and SAMBA tuning guide which I didn't found? -- Bartosz Stec ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fxp performance with POLLING
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:02:33AM +0200, Bartosz Stec wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: * Bartosz Stec [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081003 07:23] wrote: Hello again :) With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it normal? FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Sat Sep 6 01:52:12 CEST 2008 fxp0: Intel 82801DB (ICH4) Pro/100 Ethernet port 0xc800-0xc83f mem 0xe1021000-0xe1021fff irq 20 at device 8.0 on pci1 # ifconfig fxp0 fxp0: flags=9843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,LINK0,MULTICAST metric 0 mtu 1500 options=8VLAN_MTU ether 00:20:ed:42:87:13 inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active BTW overall SAMBA performance still sucks on 7.1-pre as much as on RELENG_5 ...:( - 7.5 MB/s peak. 7.5MB is 75% effeciency of a 100mbit card. Not amazing, but not sucks. Where do you see faster performance? Between windows machines on the same hardware or linux server? It sucks because it is a peak performance. About 5-6 MB/s average. I tried polling only because I found some suggestions on mailing lists, that it could improve performance with SAMBA on FreeBSD. As you see at the top of this thread - not in my case :) I also tried sysctl tunings, and smb.conf settings, also suggested on maling lists, with no or very little improvements noticed. Most of suggestions unfortunately end with change OS to Linux if you want to use SAMBA. I think I will try to change NIC to 1Gbit - hope that helps :) Or maybe there's some FreeBSD and SAMBA tuning guide which I didn't found? Can you please test network I/O using something like netperf or one of the other network-benchmark tools and not things like NFS or Samba which rely on disk I/O and other aspects? -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fxp performance with POLLING
Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:02:33AM +0200, Bartosz Stec wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: * Bartosz Stec [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081003 07:23] wrote: Hello again :) With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it normal? FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Sat Sep 6 01:52:12 CEST 2008 fxp0: Intel 82801DB (ICH4) Pro/100 Ethernet port 0xc800-0xc83f mem 0xe1021000-0xe1021fff irq 20 at device 8.0 on pci1 # ifconfig fxp0 fxp0: flags=9843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,LINK0,MULTICAST metric 0 mtu 1500 options=8VLAN_MTU ether 00:20:ed:42:87:13 inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active BTW overall SAMBA performance still sucks on 7.1-pre as much as on RELENG_5 ...:( - 7.5 MB/s peak. 7.5MB is 75% effeciency of a 100mbit card. Not amazing, but not sucks. Where do you see faster performance? Between windows machines on the same hardware or linux server? It sucks because it is a peak performance. About 5-6 MB/s average. I tried polling only because I found some suggestions on mailing lists, that it could improve performance with SAMBA on FreeBSD. As you see at the top of this thread - not in my case :) I also tried sysctl tunings, and smb.conf settings, also suggested on maling lists, with no or very little improvements noticed. Most of suggestions unfortunately end with change OS to Linux if you want to use SAMBA. I think I will try to change NIC to 1Gbit - hope that helps :) Or maybe there's some FreeBSD and SAMBA tuning guide which I didn't found? Can you please test network I/O using something like netperf or one of the other network-benchmark tools and not things like NFS or Samba which rely on disk I/O and other aspects? I remember when on FreeBSD 4.x I was able to copy files from samba and to samba up to 12MB/s on 100Mbit lan. Now with FreeBSD 6.x or 7.x I can have barely 8MB/s on 100Mbit and 27MB/s on Gigabit lan. Netperf shows 900Mbit/s in any direction, small variety with different switches (ca 10% difference). ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fxp performance with POLLING
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 10:29:35AM +0300, Andrei Kolu wrote: ... I remember when on FreeBSD 4.x I was able to copy files from samba and to samba up to 12MB/s on 100Mbit lan. This part seems unlikely, particularly as bit rates are measured in decimal millions not computer millions. 12*8*1024*1024 = 100,663,296 so that would mean not merely zero but negative packet and network overhead. -- Clifton -- Clifton Royston -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] President - I and I Computing * http://www.iandicomputing.com/ Custom programming, network design, systems and network consulting services ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fxp performance with POLLING
Jeremy Chadwick pisze: On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:02:33AM +0200, Bartosz Stec wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: * Bartosz Stec [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081003 07:23] wrote: Hello again :) With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it normal? FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Sat Sep 6 01:52:12 CEST 2008 fxp0: Intel 82801DB (ICH4) Pro/100 Ethernet port 0xc800-0xc83f mem 0xe1021000-0xe1021fff irq 20 at device 8.0 on pci1 # ifconfig fxp0 fxp0: flags=9843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,LINK0,MULTICAST metric 0 mtu 1500 options=8VLAN_MTU ether 00:20:ed:42:87:13 inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active BTW overall SAMBA performance still sucks on 7.1-pre as much as on RELENG_5 ...:( - 7.5 MB/s peak. 7.5MB is 75% effeciency of a 100mbit card. Not amazing, but not sucks. Where do you see faster performance? Between windows machines on the same hardware or linux server? It sucks because it is a peak performance. About 5-6 MB/s average. I tried polling only because I found some suggestions on mailing lists, that it could improve performance with SAMBA on FreeBSD. As you see at the top of this thread - not in my case :) I also tried sysctl tunings, and smb.conf settings, also suggested on maling lists, with no or very little improvements noticed. Most of suggestions unfortunately end with change OS to Linux if you want to use SAMBA. I think I will try to change NIC to 1Gbit - hope that helps :) Or maybe there's some FreeBSD and SAMBA tuning guide which I didn't found? Can you please test network I/O using something like netperf or one of the other network-benchmark tools and not things like NFS or Samba which rely on disk I/O and other aspects? OK It was first time i was using nerperf so I'm not sure I did it correctly. I installed netperf port on SAMBA serwer (IP 192.168.0.2), and also download windows binary to windows xp machine (IP 192.168.0.10). All tests ran for one minute. First test - netperf on FreeBSD and netserver on Windows: # netperf -l 60 -t TCP_STREAM -H 192.168.0.10 TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.0.10 (192.168.0.10) port 0 AF_INET Recv SendSend Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size SizeSize Time Throughput bytes bytes bytessecs.10^6bits/sec 8192 32768 3276860.00 93.97 # netperf -l 60 -t TCP_SENDFILE -H 192.168.0.10 TCP SENDFILE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.0.10 (192.168.0.10) port 0 AF_INET Recv SendSend Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size SizeSize Time Throughput bytes bytes bytessecs.10^6bits/sec 8192 32768 3276860.00 93.45 # netperf -l 60 -t TCP_RR -H 192.168.0.10 TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.0.10 (192.168.0.10) port 0 AF_INET Local /Remote Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans. Send Recv Size SizeTime Rate bytes Bytes bytesbytes secs.per sec 32768 65536 11 60.002433.99 8192 8192 # ifconfig fxp0 fxp0: flags=9843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,LINK0,MULTICAST metric 0 mtu 1500 options=8VLAN_MTU ether 00:20:ed:42:87:13 inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active Second test - netperf on Windows and netserver on FreeBSD: Unfortunately won't run: C:\softwarenetperf-a4 -l 60 -H 192.168.0.2 TCP STREAM TEST to 192.168.0.2 recv_response: partial response received: 0 bytes Hovewer, thanks to Alfred Perlstein who send mefollowing link: http://www.mavetju.org/mail/view_message.php?list=freebsd-netid=755111thread=notag=yes, I set SO_SNBUF and SO_RCVBUF in smb.conf to 2920. Without any additional tuning in sysctl I now got about 8MB/s which is *much* better result than before. It still could be better than that if I am reading netpertf results correctly :) Thanks Alfred! -- Bartosz Stec ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fxp performance with POLLING
Bartosz Stec wrote: BTW overall SAMBA performance still sucks on 7.1-pre as much as on RELENG_5 ...:( - 7.5 MB/s peak. 7.5MB is 75% effeciency of a 100mbit card. Not amazing, but not sucks. Where do you see faster performance? Between windows machines on the same hardware or linux server? It sucks because it is a peak performance. About 5-6 MB/s average. I tried polling only because I found some suggestions on mailing lists, that it could improve performance with SAMBA on FreeBSD. As you see at the top of this thread - not in my case :) I also tried sysctl tunings, and smb.conf settings, also suggested on maling lists, with no or very little improvements noticed. Most of suggestions unfortunately end with change OS to Linux if you want to use SAMBA. I think I will try to change NIC to 1Gbit - hope that helps :) Or maybe there's some FreeBSD and SAMBA tuning guide which I didn't found? Please try experimenting with socket options in smb.conf, I've found that some tuning is desirable on any OS with Samba, but these are the values that worked best for me with Windows XP clients in mind. Win2003 clients seemed much faster without tuning (same base code as XP 64bit) and I suspect it has a different SMB implementation. I'd suggest starting with socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_THROUGHPUT SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192 and if you aren't satisfied, experiment with the numbers and which options are enabled. Be sure that the client has been disconnected from Samba completely to make sure you are testing the values in the config file. I'm pretty sure with these tunings I was able to get closer to 10MB/sec on 100Mbit, which satisfies me for the average user. # Most people will find that this option gives better performance. # See smb.conf(5) and /usr/share/doc/samba-doc/htmldocs/speed.html # for details # You may want to add the following on a Linux system: # SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192 # socket options = TCP_NODELAY # For some reason, 8192 is pretty fast on a XP lab 100Mb client. Other sizes tested and dissapointing in that situation. Windows Server 2k3 on gig is much faster, and likes larger values. There might be some merit in testing 49152 in some situations. (20080617) # TCP_NODELAY makes a huge improvement. IPTOS_THROUGHPUT is negligible locally. # mcdouga9 20070110 socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_THROUGHPUT SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192 # socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fxp performance with POLLING
Clifton Royston wrote: On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 10:29:35AM +0300, Andrei Kolu wrote: ... I remember when on FreeBSD 4.x I was able to copy files from samba and to samba up to 12MB/s on 100Mbit lan. This part seems unlikely, particularly as bit rates are measured in decimal millions not computer millions. 12*8*1024*1024 = 100,663,296 so that would mean not merely zero but negative packet and network overhead. -- Clifton OK, I am reading right now description for Trendnet Mini-GBIC Features: (TEG-MGBSX, TEG-MGBS10, TEW-MGBS40, TEW-MGBS80) Compliant with IEEE 802.3z Gigabit Ethernet and Fiber Channel Standards Industry standard SFP package Duplex LC connector 1.0625Gbps Fiber Channel Compliant 1.25Gbps Gigabit Ethernet Compliant So, I guess that 100Mbit and 1000Mbit is not set in stone and you can actually achieve higher speeds than standard. BTW: 1 megabit = 106 = 1,000,000 bits which is equal to 125,000 bytes. 100 megabit = 12,500,000 bytes = 12,5MB Or I am wrong? ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fxp performance with POLLING
1 megabit = 106 = 1,000,000 bits which is equal to 125,000 bytes. you are assuming eight bits per byte - but this is a serial line so you should use ten bits per byte instead. -pete. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fxp performance with POLLING
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 08:38:13AM -0400, Adam McDougall wrote: Bartosz Stec wrote: BTW overall SAMBA performance still sucks on 7.1-pre as much as on RELENG_5 ...:( - 7.5 MB/s peak. 7.5MB is 75% effeciency of a 100mbit card. Not amazing, but not sucks. Where do you see faster performance? Between windows machines on the same hardware or linux server? It sucks because it is a peak performance. About 5-6 MB/s average. I tried polling only because I found some suggestions on mailing lists, that it could improve performance with SAMBA on FreeBSD. As you see at the top of this thread - not in my case :) I also tried sysctl tunings, and smb.conf settings, also suggested on maling lists, with no or very little improvements noticed. Most of suggestions unfortunately end with change OS to Linux if you want to use SAMBA. I think I will try to change NIC to 1Gbit - hope that helps :) Or maybe there's some FreeBSD and SAMBA tuning guide which I didn't found? Please try experimenting with socket options in smb.conf, I've found that some tuning is desirable on any OS with Samba, but these are the values that worked best for me with Windows XP clients in mind. Win2003 clients seemed much faster without tuning (same base code as XP 64bit) and I suspect it has a different SMB implementation. I'd suggest starting with socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_THROUGHPUT SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192 and if you aren't satisfied, experiment with the numbers and which options are enabled. Be sure that the client has been disconnected from Samba completely to make sure you are testing the values in the config file. I'm pretty sure with these tunings I was able to get closer to 10MB/sec on 100Mbit, which satisfies me for the average user. Interesting. I use gigE on my home network, and most of my Samba shares consist of very large files (ISO images and HD videos). Setting the buffer sizes to 8KB results in horrible performance; a 420MB ISO image taking ~50 seconds to copy. Copying is from the Samba server to the Windows machine. ZFS is used on FreeBSD, across 4 disks in a raidz1 pool; all disks are SATA300 with 16MByte cache. Increasing the Samba buffers to 64KB (65536) drops the transfer to 30 seconds, and increasing it to 128KB (131072) drops to 15-20 seconds. NICs involved are an Attansic L1E (on Windows XP, with TCP buffer sizes tuned in the registry, ditto with enabling TCP window resizing), and an em(4) (on FreeBSD). There are two switches between the boxes: an HP ProCurve, and a generic D-Link switch. Everything is gigE. Additionally, don't forget about IPTOS_LOWDELAY, and the write cache size and read size options in smb.conf. -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fxp performance with POLLING
* Bartosz Stec [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081003 07:23] wrote: Hello again :) With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it normal? FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Sat Sep 6 01:52:12 CEST 2008 fxp0: Intel 82801DB (ICH4) Pro/100 Ethernet port 0xc800-0xc83f mem 0xe1021000-0xe1021fff irq 20 at device 8.0 on pci1 # ifconfig fxp0 fxp0: flags=9843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,LINK0,MULTICAST metric 0 mtu 1500 options=8VLAN_MTU ether 00:20:ed:42:87:13 inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active BTW overall SAMBA performance still sucks on 7.1-pre as much as on RELENG_5 ...:( - 7.5 MB/s peak. 7.5MB is 75% effeciency of a 100mbit card. Not amazing, but not sucks. Where do you see faster performance? Between windows machines on the same hardware or linux server? -- - Alfred Perlstein ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fxp performance with POLLING
Hello again :) With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it normal? FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Sat Sep 6 01:52:12 CEST 2008 fxp0: Intel 82801DB (ICH4) Pro/100 Ethernet port 0xc800-0xc83f mem 0xe1021000-0xe1021fff irq 20 at device 8.0 on pci1 # ifconfig fxp0 fxp0: flags=9843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,LINK0,MULTICAST metric 0 mtu 1500 options=8VLAN_MTU ether 00:20:ed:42:87:13 inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active BTW overall SAMBA performance still sucks on 7.1-pre as much as on RELENG_5 ...:( - 7.5 MB/s peak. -- Bartosz Stec ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fxp performance with POLLING
On Friday 03 October 2008, Bartosz Stec wrote: Hello again :) With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it normal? Yes. You don't want to use polling unless you set kern.hz to 1 or something in that range. If you have a NIC with interrupt moderation, polling should almost never be necessary. Note that polling can still be useful for routers, because it allows you to have a much more responsive system even when handling heavy network traffic. -- Pieter de Goeje ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fxp performance with POLLING
Pieter de Goeje wrote: On Friday 03 October 2008, Bartosz Stec wrote: Hello again :) With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it normal? Yes. You don't want to use polling unless you set kern.hz to 1 or something in that range. HZ = 1000 or 2000 is fine for most purposes, at least up through T3 level bandwidth. For a home LAN or small business office of a half-dozen machines using DSL/Cable (~ 1-5 MBs up), even a P2-300 or VIA C3 600 at HZ=250 works OK as a firewall/router. The main thing that using polling does is that it adds a reasonably fixed amount of latency (ie, the poll interval) but gives solid processing performance even under heavy load, just as you say: If you have a NIC with interrupt moderation, polling should almost never be necessary. Note that polling can still be useful for routers, because it allows you to have a much more responsive system even when handling heavy network traffic. Note that he's got the link0 flag going, so that should mean he's using firmware with the fxp NIC which does interrupt moderation. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
