In a message dated 9/27/04 3:04:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Mike at sentex.net previously wrote:
>
> "Given a decent CPU, you wont see very much of a load average at all in the
> 200Kpps / 100Mb range."
Note that load average and CPU usage are two intirely different
In a message dated 9/25/04 4:24:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>The EVIDENCE is to the contrary, since it seems that a 2.4Ghz system
>will be saturated when bridging ~250Kpps with device-polling enabled,
>based on polling stats and userland benchmarking, even though the
>sy
>
> In a message dated 9/25/04 4:12:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> >FreeBSD team for developing a stack that uses no resources.
>
> For the record, what I was saying was that a decent machine (e.g. 2.4
> PIV) should be able to push 200,000 packets per second wit
it was said by [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
>The EVIDENCE is to the contrary, since it seems that a 2.4Ghz system
>will be saturated when bridging ~250Kpps with device-polling enabled,
>based on polling stats and userland benchmarking, even though the
>system claims to be 100% idle. Interestingly, its abou
At 11:40 AM 25/09/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, so the capacity of a FreeBSD router is > 10 million packets per
second, since 200K pps only uses .1 % of system resources. Kudos to the
FreeBSD team for developing a stack that uses no resources.
For the record, what I was saying was that
In a message dated 9/25/04 1:06:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> It seems beyond unreasonable that, with interrupts enabled, 55% of the
system
> is used, and with polling, ~ zero.
"Inconceivable!"
"Erm...I do not think that word means what you think it means."
It's prob
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ]
Ah, so the capacity of a FreeBSD router is > 10 million packets per second,
since 200K pps only uses .1 % of system resources. Kudos to the FreeBSD team
for developing a stack that uses no resources.
It seems beyond unreasonable that, with interrupts enabled, 55
In a message dated 9/25/04 10:17:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
At 09:57 AM 25/09/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
> As long as all your interfaces support polling, you should see
>hardly see any interrupt usage at all, as that is the whole point of
>polling. You can
At 09:57 AM 25/09/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
As long as all your interfaces support polling, you should see
hardly see any interrupt usage at all, as that is the whole point of
polling. You can allocate more or less CPU cycles to flinging packets
around via various sysctl settings. Se
In a message dated 9/24/04 11:28:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
>I thought I'd reword my question since no one seemed to understand the first
>time.
>
>Is there a way to measure CPU kernel/interrupt usage when device polling is
>enabled on 4.x systems? top and systat both
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:47:52 EDT, in sentex.lists.freebsd.questions
you wrote:
>I thought I'd reword my question since no one seemed to understand the first
>time.
>
>Is there a way to measure CPU kernel/interrupt usage when device polling is
>enabled on 4.x systems? top and systat both show 100
I thought I'd reword my question since no one seemed to understand the first
time.
Is there a way to measure CPU kernel/interrupt usage when device polling is
enabled on 4.x systems? top and systat both show 100% idle all of the time.
TM
___
[EMAIL PR
12 matches
Mail list logo
