Re: Gnome theme and window preferences not completely honored
Hi, Just for the records: an upgrade on x11-wm/metacity (I'm running 2.30.1 right now) solved the focus problems in gnome. Cheers, Antonio On 23/07/2010 11:36, Antonio Vieiro wrote: Hi, I'm running 8.1-RC2 (metacity 2.30.1) and focus-follows-mouse simply doesn't work. I think this is a metactity bug or something, maybe this is related: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155450 Any workaround to have focus-follows-mouse again would be greatly appreciated, as I hate cliking on windows to focus them. Cheers, Antonio On 13/07/2010 23:26, Willoughby, Steve wrote: I'm running FreeBSD 8.1-RC1 with Gnome 2.30.0 and am having a strange issue where I can set almost everything about the desktop appearance using the theme settings and the preferences tool, except the window decorations never change (internal icons, colors, etc, do) and things like focus-follows-mouse don't appear to be honored by the window manager. Going into the gconf editor shows that, for example, apps.metacity.general.focus_mode=sloppy, but I still have to click to type. I am probably missing something simple and obvious here, but I'm not spotting it yet. What can I look for next? Thanks! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Gnome theme and window preferences not completely honored
Hi, I'm running 8.1-RC2 (metacity 2.30.1) and focus-follows-mouse simply doesn't work. I think this is a metactity bug or something, maybe this is related: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155450 Any workaround to have focus-follows-mouse again would be greatly appreciated, as I hate cliking on windows to focus them. Cheers, Antonio On 13/07/2010 23:26, Willoughby, Steve wrote: I'm running FreeBSD 8.1-RC1 with Gnome 2.30.0 and am having a strange issue where I can set almost everything about the desktop appearance using the theme settings and the preferences tool, except the window decorations never change (internal icons, colors, etc, do) and things like focus-follows-mouse don't appear to be honored by the window manager. Going into the gconf editor shows that, for example, apps.metacity.general.focus_mode=sloppy, but I still have to click to type. I am probably missing something simple and obvious here, but I'm not spotting it yet. What can I look for next? Thanks! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Gnome theme and window preferences not completely honored
I'm running FreeBSD 8.1-RC1 with Gnome 2.30.0 and am having a strange issue where I can set almost everything about the desktop appearance using the theme settings and the preferences tool, except the window decorations never change (internal icons, colors, etc, do) and things like focus-follows-mouse don't appear to be honored by the window manager. Going into the gconf editor shows that, for example, apps.metacity.general.focus_mode=sloppy, but I still have to click to type. I am probably missing something simple and obvious here, but I'm not spotting it yet. What can I look for next? Thanks! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
theme
In some FreeBSD pictures, i see a dock at the bottom. how do i get this? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: theme
Could you post a link to an example image? It sounds like you're describing the features of a window manager of some sort, in which case that would be a separate program. Examples of window managers/desktop environments would include fluxbox, gnome, awesome, kde, etc. It could be any one of them, depending on what the author of the said picture was using. -Modulok- On 4/5/10, tristan tristan.n...@gmail.com wrote: In some FreeBSD pictures, i see a dock at the bottom. how do i get this? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: theme
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:41:19 -0400, tristan tristan.n...@gmail.com wrote: In some FreeBSD pictures, i see a dock at the bottom. how do i get this? When reading a dock, NeXT-oriented window managers such as WindowMaker come into mind (which I am traditionally using, but with the dock on the right). Others may see XFCE (version 3) and Xfce (version 4) which both have a dock, allthough it may be named differently. If you're thinking about a dock as Mac OS X implements it, you can do this with the Avant Window Navigator (AWN). I'm currently trying to do *this* with FreeBSD: http://xubuntublog.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/design-your-own-desktop-with-xfce-44-part-2/ Maybe it gives you some inspiration or further hints. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
FreeBSD SLIM Theme?
FreeBSD Fans, Does anyone know of any FreeBSD SLIM(SImple Login Manager) themes? I stumbled across one web site with such a theme one day while I was at work. I figured I'd be able to find it from home via Google, but I haven't been able to locate it since then. Kevin http://www.RawFedDogs.net http://www.WacoAgilityGroup.org Bruceville, TX Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes. Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla!!! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD SLIM Theme?
Brad, On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Brad Pitney wrote: only one I know of is http://slim.berlios.de/themes01.php - also has a Themes howto While there's definitely the possibility that I'm overlooking it, I've checked that page several times, both before posting to the list and after seeing your e-mail, and I don't see a FreeBSD theme listed there. I've read over the howto and while it seems simple enough I, sadly, have the artistic ability of a turnip. Be it with pencil or mouse I do good to draw stick figures. :-) Kevin http://www.RawFedDogs.net http://www.WacoAgilityGroup.org Bruceville, TX Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes. Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla!!! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aurora Theme Engine
Hi, I have found that my favorite gnome theme engine is not in the ports, I have discovered all that needs to be modified to make it work under FreeBSD, what do I do to get it into the ports (who do I pass it onto etc?). The theme in question is here: http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=56438 And this is what I did to make it work: 1) Make the install-sh file executable 2) Change the --prefix=/usr to --prefix=/usr/local ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dell latitude x300 Fbsd 6.2 / gnome 2.18 / xorg 7.2 / beryl/ emerald theme
xorg.conf at bottom of email.. I Followed these instructions, http://www.bsdforums.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-47986.html except without nvidia driver cause i have intel 855i or somthing chipset. ps. i dont have compat5 enabled in rc.conf I try to start emerald... i receive no errors, just sits there at command line. I try to start beryl... the 'style' dissappears off my windows that are open (you know, cant click or move it or anything) and then it goes white... if i do the zoom out thing, moving mouse to top right corner, it stays white, but i can see my terminal icon, click it, and hit ctrl +c to stop beryl. here is output of term after starting and killing beryl. $ beryl ** * Beryl system compatiblity check* ** Detected xserver: AIGLX Checking Display :0.0 ... Checking for XComposite extension : passed (v0.3) Checking for XDamage extension : passed Checking for RandR extension: passed Checking for XSync extension: passed Checking Screen 0 ... Checking for GLX_SGIX_fbconfig : passed Checking for GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap: passed Checking for non power of two texture support : passed Checking maximum texture size : passed (2048x2048) beryl: No GLXFBConfig for default depth, falling back on visinfo. Reloading options beryl: Error int SHM creation # File generated by xorgconfig. # # Copyright 2004 The X.Org Foundation # # Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a # copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), # to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation # the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, # and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the # Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: # # The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in # all copies or substantial portions of the Software. # # THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR # IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, # FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL # The X.Org Foundation BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, # WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF # OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE # SOFTWARE. # # Except as contained in this notice, the name of The X.Org Foundation shall # not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other # dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from # The X.Org Foundation. # # ** # Refer to the xorg.conf(5) man page for details about the format of # this file. # ** # ** # Module section -- this section is used to specify # which dynamically loadable modules to load. # ** # Section Module # This loads the DBE extension module. Loaddbe # Double buffer extension # This loads the miscellaneous extensions module, and disables # initialisation of the XFree86-DGA extension within that module. SubSection extmod Optionomit xfree86-dga # don't initialise the DGA extension EndSubSection # This loads the font modules Loadtype1 Loadfreetype Loadextmod Loadrecord Loadxtrap #Loadxtt # This loads the GLX module Load glx # This loads the DRI module #Load dri EndSection # ** # Files section. This allows default font and rgb paths to be set # ** Section Files # The location of the RGB database. Note, this is the name of the # file minus the extension (like .txt or .db). There is normally # no need to change the default. #RgbPath/usr/local/share/X11/rgb # Multiple FontPath entries are allowed (which are concatenated together), # as well as specifying multiple comma-separated entries in one FontPath # command (or a combination of both methods) # # FontPath /usr/local/lib/X11/fonts/misc/ FontPath /usr/local/lib/X11/fonts/TTF/ FontPath /usr/local/lib/X11/fonts/OTF FontPath /usr/local/lib/X11/fonts/Type1/ FontPath /usr/local/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi/ FontPath /usr/local/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi/ FontPath
seamonkey issue -- theme switching
hello! i've just upgraded from mozilla (1.7.12) to seamonkey (1.0.1) and unfortunately run into the following issue: theme change does not last for longer than 1 restart -- i change the theme (to pinball theme http://mozilla-themes.schellen.net/), restart seamonkey as suggested, new theme is being used but after another restart of seamonkey i'm back with the previous or original (?) seamonkey theme (modern). /note that i'm running seamonkey on freebsd 6.1-rc, after just reinstalling all my ports from scratch but keeping my old mozilla profile./ any thoughts or suggestions pls ?? cheers, martin ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Missing MIDI Framework (was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 09:32:59AM -0800, Loren M. Lang wrote: On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 02:14:34AM +0100, cpghost wrote: On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 05:09:38PM +, David Gerard wrote: Danial Thom wrote: I vote for Look what they've done to my song, Ma - a commentary on the destruction of the (formally) world's best operating system. So far I'm finding 6.x a heck of a lot better than 5.x. The mousewheel just works, a lot more of the ports just work, sound works ... you still have to fiddle with /boot/loader.conf to get the sound to go, which is completely braindead, but I'm sure it'll be up to the standard of Linux distros 2001. Ahemm, speaking of sound... how about a, *cough*, working MIDI sequencer? Any way to attach a MIDI device to 5.x or 6.x _and_ being able to record from it? Anything workable yet? No? Am I missing something crucial here? How about Timidity? What would be nice, though, is for timidity to show up as a hardware device. AFAIK, Timitidy is just a software MIDI player (MIDI - wav converter). This is just one part of the the game. What I'm looking for is a way to record from MIDI devices (keyboards etc...), and this is not supported by Timidity. The sad thing about this is that we used to have a (sort of) working MIDI implementation in the past. :-( Dual-booting into gentoo/linux for this is not really a problem; but ain't there any brave soul who could fix MIDI for FreeBSD? Regards, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
actually, I tested the ping-flooder from the my-security.net link and surprisingly it works under W2K. At least, enough to be able to get the FreeBSD system it was targeted at to start instituting ICMP limiting. I have no idea if it could in fact actually saturate a 100BaseT connection, or in fact if any Win2K system could. The presumption was that if Sasa was indeed interesting in running it, we could move on to a bit more sophistication, such as packet-counting access lists on the FreeBSD router that he's publishing stats from. Once we get some numbers from that, we could begin doing some rudimentary math to see what we have. Unfortunately, though, looks like Sasa has lost interest in the project when it started to require some effort to do. :-( Ted -Original Message- From: Danial Thom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:32 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Sasa Stupar; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) LOL. Trying to dig ditches with ice cream sticks boys? --- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sasa, Try this ping flooder then: http://my-security.net/outofsite/ICMP%20Ping%20Flood.zip Ted -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 12:00 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) It doesn't work on winxp. I am going to build another machine with FreeBSD 5.4 and I'll try it then and let you know the results. Sasa --On 18. december 2005 14:02 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In looking at this again, I didn't realize you were pinging from Win2K Win2K uses the -f option to set the Do Not Fragment bit, UNIX uses the -f option to flood ping. Win2k ping does not have a flood ping option. You can download a ping for Windows from Microsoft here: http://research.microsoft.com/barc/mbone/mping.aspx that does have an option for flooding traffic. ( set the milliseconds between packets very low) but I have not tested it. Doubtless others are available on the Internet. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 6:07 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Nothing. From the GUI view it is at 0% of utilisation. Sasa --On 18. december 2005 3:51 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what does the CPU of the router do when your doing that? Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 3:00 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 18. december 2005 2:32 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 2:21 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 18. december 2005 1:33 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 5:25 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 16. december 2005 3:36 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:34 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Ted Hmmm, here is test with iperf what I have done with and without polling: ** Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1088 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 108 MBytes 90.1 Mbits/sec This is when I use Device polling option on m0n0. If I disable this option then my transfer is worse: Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 07:38:12AM -0800, Danial Thom wrote: Because those of us with real jobs are required to do so. Kris doesn't just not see my point. If you can't see that then you can't be reasoned with either. --- Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, a TOP poster as well. Danial Thom wrote: Kris is just a PR front man for a team of developers that is lost. Their theory on how to build a better mousetrap for MP is completely wrong, and now they're going to try something else, using the entire FreeBSD community as guinea pigs. First 5.4 was the answer. Then 6.0. Now it looks like 6.0 sucks too. Its a damn shame. DT IF you are such a man that can actually call himself an engineer - why hide behind Yahoo mail? Next, IF you are as you claim to be - WHY are you not on the team or at least contributing code? To insult one person for not seeing your point of view is a show of closed mindedness - to insult a whole list of users ... Well, I do think that speaks volumes about you - as a whole. If you feel the need to insult Kris - keep it off-list. If you feel the need to insult the rest of us, you may be better off seeking help in the real world and moving on. Why would you continually expose yourself to us if we make you that unhappy? Or - is it a craving you need to satisfy by either bitching and moaning or insulting us to make yourself feel superior? If that's the case - then professional help is for you. Seek it, feel better about yourself - and move on. -- Best regards, Chris A Smith and Wesson beats four aces. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I sense much NT in you. NT leads to Bluescreen. Bluescreen leads to downtime. Downtime leads to suffering. NT is the path to the darkside. Powerful Unix is. Public Key: ftp://ftp.tallye.com/pub/lorenl_pubkey.asc Fingerprint: CEE1 AAE2 F66C 59B5 34CA C415 6D35 E847 0118 A3D2 pgptiUODEq4oF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 11:25, Loren M. Lang wrote: On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 07:38:12AM -0800, Danial Thom wrote: Because those of us with real jobs are required to do so. Kris doesn't just not see my point. If you can't see that then you can't be reasoned with either. --- Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, a TOP poster as well. Hmm, a NON trimmer as well. ;) Sorry couldn't resist. We all need some humor. -Allen. _ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 02:14:34AM +0100, cpghost wrote: On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 05:09:38PM +, David Gerard wrote: Danial Thom wrote: I vote for Look what they've done to my song, Ma - a commentary on the destruction of the (formally) world's best operating system. So far I'm finding 6.x a heck of a lot better than 5.x. The mousewheel just works, a lot more of the ports just work, sound works ... you still have to fiddle with /boot/loader.conf to get the sound to go, which is completely braindead, but I'm sure it'll be up to the standard of Linux distros 2001. Ahemm, speaking of sound... how about a, *cough*, working MIDI sequencer? Any way to attach a MIDI device to 5.x or 6.x _and_ being able to record from it? Anything workable yet? No? Am I missing something crucial here? How about Timidity? What would be nice, though, is for timidity to show up as a hardware device. I would suggest a song about Pokemon sex toys. :) - d. Thanks, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I sense much NT in you. NT leads to Bluescreen. Bluescreen leads to downtime. Downtime leads to suffering. NT is the path to the darkside. Powerful Unix is. Public Key: ftp://ftp.tallye.com/pub/lorenl_pubkey.asc Fingerprint: CEE1 AAE2 F66C 59B5 34CA C415 6D35 E847 0118 A3D2 pgp7GPrpolhOd.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
LOL. Trying to dig ditches with ice cream sticks boys? --- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sasa, Try this ping flooder then: http://my-security.net/outofsite/ICMP%20Ping%20Flood.zip Ted -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 12:00 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) It doesn't work on winxp. I am going to build another machine with FreeBSD 5.4 and I'll try it then and let you know the results. Sasa --On 18. december 2005 14:02 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In looking at this again, I didn't realize you were pinging from Win2K Win2K uses the -f option to set the Do Not Fragment bit, UNIX uses the -f option to flood ping. Win2k ping does not have a flood ping option. You can download a ping for Windows from Microsoft here: http://research.microsoft.com/barc/mbone/mping.aspx that does have an option for flooding traffic. ( set the milliseconds between packets very low) but I have not tested it. Doubtless others are available on the Internet. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 6:07 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Nothing. From the GUI view it is at 0% of utilisation. Sasa --On 18. december 2005 3:51 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what does the CPU of the router do when your doing that? Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 3:00 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 18. december 2005 2:32 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 2:21 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 18. december 2005 1:33 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 5:25 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 16. december 2005 3:36 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:34 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Ted Hmmm, here is test with iperf what I have done with and without polling: ** Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1088 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 108 MBytes 90.1 Mbits/sec This is when I use Device polling option on m0n0. If I disable this option then my transfer is worse: Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) === message truncated === __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
It doesn't work on winxp. I am going to build another machine with FreeBSD 5.4 and I'll try it then and let you know the results. Sasa --On 18. december 2005 14:02 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In looking at this again, I didn't realize you were pinging from Win2K Win2K uses the -f option to set the Do Not Fragment bit, UNIX uses the -f option to flood ping. Win2k ping does not have a flood ping option. You can download a ping for Windows from Microsoft here: http://research.microsoft.com/barc/mbone/mping.aspx that does have an option for flooding traffic. ( set the milliseconds between packets very low) but I have not tested it. Doubtless others are available on the Internet. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 6:07 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Nothing. From the GUI view it is at 0% of utilisation. Sasa --On 18. december 2005 3:51 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what does the CPU of the router do when your doing that? Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 3:00 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 18. december 2005 2:32 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 2:21 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 18. december 2005 1:33 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 5:25 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 16. december 2005 3:36 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:34 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Ted Hmmm, here is test with iperf what I have done with and without polling: ** Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1088 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 108 MBytes 90.1 Mbits/sec This is when I use Device polling option on m0n0. If I disable this option then my transfer is worse: Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1086 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 69.7 MBytes 58.4 Mbits/sec *** BTW: my router is m0n0wall (FBSD 4.11). what are the cpu speeds and operating systems of all devices in the packet path, what is the make and model of switchs in use, provide dmesg output of the bsd box, a network diagram of the setup, etc. etc. etc. The above test results are not replicatable and thus, worthless. Useful test results would allow a reader to build an exact duplicate of your setup, config it identically, and get identical results. Ted OK. The server (192.168.1.200) is FreeBSD 5.4 with Duron 900 and 3C905C The 3com 3c905 is not a very good card under FreeBSD the driver was written without support from 3com and is shakey on a lot of hardware. I would say there's a big question that your server is actually saturating the ethernet. Probably that is why your only getting 90Mbt. NIC; router is m0n0wall (FreeBSD 4.11) with three Intel Pro/100S Nics and Celeron 433; The user computer (192.168.10.249) is Celeron 2400 with winxp and integrated NIC Realtek 8139 series. Switch is CNET CNSH-1600. Once again, the winxp+realtek 8139 is not a particularly steller combo, I would question that this system could saturate the ethernet, either. Diagram: http://me.homelinux.net/network.pdf dmesg from the router: $ dmesg Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
Sasa, Try this ping flooder then: http://my-security.net/outofsite/ICMP%20Ping%20Flood.zip Ted -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 12:00 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) It doesn't work on winxp. I am going to build another machine with FreeBSD 5.4 and I'll try it then and let you know the results. Sasa --On 18. december 2005 14:02 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In looking at this again, I didn't realize you were pinging from Win2K Win2K uses the -f option to set the Do Not Fragment bit, UNIX uses the -f option to flood ping. Win2k ping does not have a flood ping option. You can download a ping for Windows from Microsoft here: http://research.microsoft.com/barc/mbone/mping.aspx that does have an option for flooding traffic. ( set the milliseconds between packets very low) but I have not tested it. Doubtless others are available on the Internet. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 6:07 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Nothing. From the GUI view it is at 0% of utilisation. Sasa --On 18. december 2005 3:51 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what does the CPU of the router do when your doing that? Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 3:00 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 18. december 2005 2:32 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 2:21 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 18. december 2005 1:33 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 5:25 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 16. december 2005 3:36 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:34 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Ted Hmmm, here is test with iperf what I have done with and without polling: ** Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1088 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 108 MBytes 90.1 Mbits/sec This is when I use Device polling option on m0n0. If I disable this option then my transfer is worse: Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1086 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 69.7 MBytes 58.4 Mbits/sec *** BTW: my router is m0n0wall (FBSD 4.11). what are the cpu speeds and operating systems of all devices in the packet path, what is the make and model of switchs in use, provide dmesg output of the bsd box, a network diagram of the setup, etc. etc. etc. The above test results are not replicatable and thus, worthless. Useful test results would allow a reader to build an exact duplicate of your setup, config it identically, and get identical results. Ted OK. The server (192.168.1.200) is FreeBSD 5.4 with Duron 900 and 3C905C The 3com 3c905 is not a very good card under FreeBSD the driver was written without support from 3com and is shakey on a lot of hardware. I would say there's a big question that your server is actually saturating the ethernet. Probably that is why your only getting 90Mbt. NIC; router is m0n0wall (FreeBSD 4.11) with three Intel Pro/100S Nics and Celeron 433; The user computer (192.168.10.249) is Celeron 2400 with winxp and integrated NIC Realtek 8139 series. Switch is CNET CNSH-1600. Once
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
-Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 5:25 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 16. december 2005 3:36 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:34 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Ted Hmmm, here is test with iperf what I have done with and without polling: ** Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1088 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 108 MBytes 90.1 Mbits/sec This is when I use Device polling option on m0n0. If I disable this option then my transfer is worse: Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1086 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 69.7 MBytes 58.4 Mbits/sec *** BTW: my router is m0n0wall (FBSD 4.11). what are the cpu speeds and operating systems of all devices in the packet path, what is the make and model of switchs in use, provide dmesg output of the bsd box, a network diagram of the setup, etc. etc. etc. The above test results are not replicatable and thus, worthless. Useful test results would allow a reader to build an exact duplicate of your setup, config it identically, and get identical results. Ted OK. The server (192.168.1.200) is FreeBSD 5.4 with Duron 900 and 3C905C The 3com 3c905 is not a very good card under FreeBSD the driver was written without support from 3com and is shakey on a lot of hardware. I would say there's a big question that your server is actually saturating the ethernet. Probably that is why your only getting 90Mbt. NIC; router is m0n0wall (FreeBSD 4.11) with three Intel Pro/100S Nics and Celeron 433; The user computer (192.168.10.249) is Celeron 2400 with winxp and integrated NIC Realtek 8139 series. Switch is CNET CNSH-1600. Once again, the winxp+realtek 8139 is not a particularly steller combo, I would question that this system could saturate the ethernet, either. Diagram: http://me.homelinux.net/network.pdf dmesg from the router: $ dmesg Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p11 #0: Wed Sep 7 13:49:09 CEST 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/compile/M0N0WALL_GENERIC Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182 Hz CPU: Pentium II/Pentium II Xeon/Celeron (434.32-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0x665 Stepping = 5 Features=0x183f9ffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,SEP,MTRR,P GE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,MMX,FXSR real memory = 201326592 (196608K bytes) avail memory = 179142656 (174944K bytes) Preloaded elf kernel kernel at 0xc1006000. Preloaded mfs_root /mfsroot at 0xc100609c. Pentium Pro MTRR support enabled md0: Preloaded image /mfsroot 11534336 bytes at 0xc0504d9c md1: Malloc disk Using $PIR table, 8 entries at 0xc00fdef0 npx0: math processor on motherboard npx0: INT 16 interface pcib0: Intel 82443BX (440 BX) host to PCI bridge on motherboard pci0: PCI bus on pcib0 pcib1: Intel 82443BX (440 BX) PCI-PCI (AGP) bridge at device 1.0 on pci0 pci1: PCI bus on pcib1 isab0: Intel 82371AB PCI to ISA bridge at device 7.0 on pci0 isa0: ISA bus on isab0 atapci0: Intel PIIX4 ATA33 controller port 0xf000-0xf00f at device 7.1 on pci0 ata0: at 0x1f0 irq 14 on atapci0 ata1: at 0x170 irq 15 on atapci0 uhci0: Intel 82371AB/EB (PIIX4) USB controller port 0xd000-0xd01f irq 11 at device 7.2 on pci0 usb0: Intel 82371AB/EB (PIIX4) USB controller on uhci0 usb0: USB revision 1.0 uhub0: Intel UHCI root hub, class 9/0, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub0: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered chip1: Intel 82371AB Power management controller port 0x5000-0x500f at device 7.3 on pci0 pci0: unknown card (vendor=0x1274, dev=0x1371) at 8.0 irq 11 fxp0: Intel 82550 Pro/100 Ethernet port 0xd800-0xd83f mem 0xd040-0xd041,0xd046-0xd0460fff irq 10 at device 15.0 on pci0 fxp0: Ethernet address 00:02:b3:62:f6:06 inphy0: i82555 10/100 media interface on miibus0 inphy0: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto fxp1: Intel
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danial Thom Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 7:36 AM To: Sasa Stupar; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --- Sasa Stupar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --On 15. december 2005 6:33 -0800 Drew Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/15/2005 12:33 AM Sasa Stupar wrote: --On 14. december 2005 20:01 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Danial Thom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:14 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Well, if polling does no good for fxp, due to the hardware doing controlled interrupts, then why does the fxp driver even let you set it as an option? And why have many people who have enabled it on fxp seen an improvement? They haven't, freebsd accounting doesn't work properly with polling enabled, and they don't have the ability to know if they are getting better performance, because they, like you, have no clue what they're doing. How about all the idiots running MP with FreeBSD 4.x, when we know its just a waste of time? they all think they're getting worthwhile performance, because they are clueless. I would call them idiots if they are running MP under FreeBSD and assuming that they are getting better performance without actually testing for it. But if they are just running MP because they happen to be using an MP server, and they want to see if it will work or not, who cares? Maybe its tunable because they guy who wrote the driver made it a tunable? duh. I've yet to see one credible, controlled test that shows polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. Hm, OK I believe that. As I recall I asked you earlier to post the test setup you used for your own tests proving that polling is worse, and you haven't done so yet. Now you are saying you have never seen a credible controlled test that shows polling vs interrupt-driven. So I guess either you were blind when you ran your own tests, or your own tests are not credible, controlled polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. As I have been saying all along. Now your agreeing with me. The only advantage of polling is that it will drop packets instead of going into livelock. The disadvantage is that it will drop packets when you have momentary bursts that would harmlessly put the machine into livelock. Thats about it. Ah, now I think suddenly I see what the chip on your shoulder is. You would rather have your router based on FreeBSD go into livelock while packets stack up, than drop anything. You tested the polling code and found that yipes, it drops packets. What may I ask do you think that a Cisco or other router does when you shove 10Mbt of traffic into it's Ethernet interface destined for a host behind a T1 that is plugged into the other end? (and no, source-quench is not the correct answer) I think the scenario of it being better to momentary go into livelock during an overload is only applicable to one scenario, where the 2 interfaces in the router are the same capacity. As in ethernet-to-ethernet routers. Most certainly not Ethernet-to-serial routers, like what most routers are that aren't on DSL lines. If you have a different understanding then please explain. I've read those datasheets as well and the thing I don't understand is that if you are pumping 100Mbt into an Etherexpress Pro/100 then if the card will not interrupt more than this throttled rate you keep talking about, then the card's interrupt throttling is going to limit the inbound bandwidth to below 100Mbt. Wrong again, Ted. It scares me that you consider yourself knowlegable about this. You can process # interrupts X ring_size packets; not one per interrupt. You're only polling 1000x per second (or whatever you have hz set to), so why do you think that you have to interrupt for every packet to do 100Mb/s? I never said anything about interrupting for every packet, did I? Of course not since I know what your talking about. However, it is you who are throwing around the numbers - or were in your prior post - regarding the fxp driver and hardware. Why should I have to do the work digging around in the datasheets and doing the math? Since you seem to be wanting to argue this from a theory standpoint, then your only option is to === message truncated === message too large for stupid Yahoo mailer Unfortunately your test is not controlled, which is pretty typical of most OS testers. Firstly
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
--On 18. december 2005 1:33 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 5:25 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 16. december 2005 3:36 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:34 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Ted Hmmm, here is test with iperf what I have done with and without polling: ** Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1088 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 108 MBytes 90.1 Mbits/sec This is when I use Device polling option on m0n0. If I disable this option then my transfer is worse: Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1086 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 69.7 MBytes 58.4 Mbits/sec *** BTW: my router is m0n0wall (FBSD 4.11). what are the cpu speeds and operating systems of all devices in the packet path, what is the make and model of switchs in use, provide dmesg output of the bsd box, a network diagram of the setup, etc. etc. etc. The above test results are not replicatable and thus, worthless. Useful test results would allow a reader to build an exact duplicate of your setup, config it identically, and get identical results. Ted OK. The server (192.168.1.200) is FreeBSD 5.4 with Duron 900 and 3C905C The 3com 3c905 is not a very good card under FreeBSD the driver was written without support from 3com and is shakey on a lot of hardware. I would say there's a big question that your server is actually saturating the ethernet. Probably that is why your only getting 90Mbt. NIC; router is m0n0wall (FreeBSD 4.11) with three Intel Pro/100S Nics and Celeron 433; The user computer (192.168.10.249) is Celeron 2400 with winxp and integrated NIC Realtek 8139 series. Switch is CNET CNSH-1600. Once again, the winxp+realtek 8139 is not a particularly steller combo, I would question that this system could saturate the ethernet, either. Diagram: http://me.homelinux.net/network.pdf dmesg from the router: $ dmesg Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p11 #0: Wed Sep 7 13:49:09 CEST 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/compile/M0N0WALL_GENERIC Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182 Hz CPU: Pentium II/Pentium II Xeon/Celeron (434.32-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0x665 Stepping = 5 Features=0x183f9ffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,SEP,MTRR,P GE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,MMX,FXSR real memory = 201326592 (196608K bytes) avail memory = 179142656 (174944K bytes) Preloaded elf kernel kernel at 0xc1006000. Preloaded mfs_root /mfsroot at 0xc100609c. Pentium Pro MTRR support enabled md0: Preloaded image /mfsroot 11534336 bytes at 0xc0504d9c md1: Malloc disk Using $PIR table, 8 entries at 0xc00fdef0 npx0: math processor on motherboard npx0: INT 16 interface pcib0: Intel 82443BX (440 BX) host to PCI bridge on motherboard pci0: PCI bus on pcib0 pcib1: Intel 82443BX (440 BX) PCI-PCI (AGP) bridge at device 1.0 on pci0 pci1: PCI bus on pcib1 isab0: Intel 82371AB PCI to ISA bridge at device 7.0 on pci0 isa0: ISA bus on isab0 atapci0: Intel PIIX4 ATA33 controller port 0xf000-0xf00f at device 7.1 on pci0 ata0: at 0x1f0 irq 14 on atapci0 ata1: at 0x170 irq 15 on atapci0 uhci0: Intel 82371AB/EB (PIIX4) USB controller port 0xd000-0xd01f irq 11 at device 7.2 on pci0 usb0: Intel 82371AB/EB (PIIX4) USB controller on uhci0 usb0: USB revision 1.0 uhub0: Intel UHCI root hub, class 9/0, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub0: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered chip1: Intel 82371AB Power management controller port 0x5000-0x500f at device 7.3 on pci0 pci0: unknown card (vendor=0x1274, dev=0x1371) at 8.0 irq 11 fxp0: Intel 82550 Pro/100 Ethernet port 0xd800-0xd83f mem 0xd040-0xd041,0xd046-0xd0460fff irq 10 at device 15.0 on pci0 fxp0: Ethernet address 00:02:b3:62:f6:06 inphy0: i82555 10/100 media interface on miibus0 inphy0: 10baseT
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 2:21 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 18. december 2005 1:33 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 5:25 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 16. december 2005 3:36 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:34 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Ted Hmmm, here is test with iperf what I have done with and without polling: ** Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1088 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 108 MBytes 90.1 Mbits/sec This is when I use Device polling option on m0n0. If I disable this option then my transfer is worse: Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1086 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 69.7 MBytes 58.4 Mbits/sec *** BTW: my router is m0n0wall (FBSD 4.11). what are the cpu speeds and operating systems of all devices in the packet path, what is the make and model of switchs in use, provide dmesg output of the bsd box, a network diagram of the setup, etc. etc. etc. The above test results are not replicatable and thus, worthless. Useful test results would allow a reader to build an exact duplicate of your setup, config it identically, and get identical results. Ted OK. The server (192.168.1.200) is FreeBSD 5.4 with Duron 900 and 3C905C The 3com 3c905 is not a very good card under FreeBSD the driver was written without support from 3com and is shakey on a lot of hardware. I would say there's a big question that your server is actually saturating the ethernet. Probably that is why your only getting 90Mbt. NIC; router is m0n0wall (FreeBSD 4.11) with three Intel Pro/100S Nics and Celeron 433; The user computer (192.168.10.249) is Celeron 2400 with winxp and integrated NIC Realtek 8139 series. Switch is CNET CNSH-1600. Once again, the winxp+realtek 8139 is not a particularly steller combo, I would question that this system could saturate the ethernet, either. Diagram: http://me.homelinux.net/network.pdf dmesg from the router: $ dmesg Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p11 #0: Wed Sep 7 13:49:09 CEST 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/compile/M0N0WALL_GENERIC Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182 Hz CPU: Pentium II/Pentium II Xeon/Celeron (434.32-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0x665 Stepping = 5 Features=0x183f9ffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,SEP,MTRR,P GE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,MMX,FXSR real memory = 201326592 (196608K bytes) avail memory = 179142656 (174944K bytes) Preloaded elf kernel kernel at 0xc1006000. Preloaded mfs_root /mfsroot at 0xc100609c. Pentium Pro MTRR support enabled md0: Preloaded image /mfsroot 11534336 bytes at 0xc0504d9c md1: Malloc disk Using $PIR table, 8 entries at 0xc00fdef0 npx0: math processor on motherboard npx0: INT 16 interface pcib0: Intel 82443BX (440 BX) host to PCI bridge on motherboard pci0: PCI bus on pcib0 pcib1: Intel 82443BX (440 BX) PCI-PCI (AGP) bridge at device 1.0 on pci0 pci1: PCI bus on pcib1 isab0: Intel 82371AB PCI to ISA bridge at device 7.0 on pci0 isa0: ISA bus on isab0 atapci0: Intel PIIX4 ATA33 controller port 0xf000-0xf00f at device 7.1 on pci0 ata0: at 0x1f0 irq 14 on atapci0 ata1: at 0x170 irq 15 on atapci0 uhci0: Intel 82371AB/EB (PIIX4) USB controller port 0xd000-0xd01f irq 11 at device 7.2 on pci0 usb0: Intel 82371AB/EB (PIIX4) USB controller on uhci0 usb0: USB revision 1.0 uhub0: Intel UHCI root hub, class 9/0, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub0: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered chip1: Intel 82371AB Power
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
--On 18. december 2005 2:32 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 2:21 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 18. december 2005 1:33 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 5:25 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 16. december 2005 3:36 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:34 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Ted Hmmm, here is test with iperf what I have done with and without polling: ** Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1088 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 108 MBytes 90.1 Mbits/sec This is when I use Device polling option on m0n0. If I disable this option then my transfer is worse: Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1086 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 69.7 MBytes 58.4 Mbits/sec *** BTW: my router is m0n0wall (FBSD 4.11). what are the cpu speeds and operating systems of all devices in the packet path, what is the make and model of switchs in use, provide dmesg output of the bsd box, a network diagram of the setup, etc. etc. etc. The above test results are not replicatable and thus, worthless. Useful test results would allow a reader to build an exact duplicate of your setup, config it identically, and get identical results. Ted OK. The server (192.168.1.200) is FreeBSD 5.4 with Duron 900 and 3C905C The 3com 3c905 is not a very good card under FreeBSD the driver was written without support from 3com and is shakey on a lot of hardware. I would say there's a big question that your server is actually saturating the ethernet. Probably that is why your only getting 90Mbt. NIC; router is m0n0wall (FreeBSD 4.11) with three Intel Pro/100S Nics and Celeron 433; The user computer (192.168.10.249) is Celeron 2400 with winxp and integrated NIC Realtek 8139 series. Switch is CNET CNSH-1600. Once again, the winxp+realtek 8139 is not a particularly steller combo, I would question that this system could saturate the ethernet, either. Diagram: http://me.homelinux.net/network.pdf dmesg from the router: $ dmesg Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p11 #0: Wed Sep 7 13:49:09 CEST 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/compile/M0N0WALL_GENERIC Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182 Hz CPU: Pentium II/Pentium II Xeon/Celeron (434.32-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0x665 Stepping = 5 Features=0x183f9ffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,SEP,MTRR,P GE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,MMX,FXSR real memory = 201326592 (196608K bytes) avail memory = 179142656 (174944K bytes) Preloaded elf kernel kernel at 0xc1006000. Preloaded mfs_root /mfsroot at 0xc100609c. Pentium Pro MTRR support enabled md0: Preloaded image /mfsroot 11534336 bytes at 0xc0504d9c md1: Malloc disk Using $PIR table, 8 entries at 0xc00fdef0 npx0: math processor on motherboard npx0: INT 16 interface pcib0: Intel 82443BX (440 BX) host to PCI bridge on motherboard pci0: PCI bus on pcib0 pcib1: Intel 82443BX (440 BX) PCI-PCI (AGP) bridge at device 1.0 on pci0 pci1: PCI bus on pcib1 isab0: Intel 82371AB PCI to ISA bridge at device 7.0 on pci0 isa0: ISA bus on isab0 atapci0: Intel PIIX4 ATA33 controller port 0xf000-0xf00f at device 7.1 on pci0 ata0: at 0x1f0 irq 14 on atapci0 ata1: at 0x170 irq 15 on atapci0 uhci0: Intel 82371AB/EB (PIIX4) USB controller port 0xd000-0xd01f irq 11 at device 7.2 on pci0 usb0: Intel 82371AB/EB (PIIX4) USB controller on uhci0 usb0: USB revision 1.0 uhub0: Intel UHCI root hub, class 9/0, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub0: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered chip1: Intel 82371AB Power management
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
what does the CPU of the router do when your doing that? Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 3:00 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 18. december 2005 2:32 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 2:21 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 18. december 2005 1:33 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 5:25 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 16. december 2005 3:36 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:34 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Ted Hmmm, here is test with iperf what I have done with and without polling: ** Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1088 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 108 MBytes 90.1 Mbits/sec This is when I use Device polling option on m0n0. If I disable this option then my transfer is worse: Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1086 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 69.7 MBytes 58.4 Mbits/sec *** BTW: my router is m0n0wall (FBSD 4.11). what are the cpu speeds and operating systems of all devices in the packet path, what is the make and model of switchs in use, provide dmesg output of the bsd box, a network diagram of the setup, etc. etc. etc. The above test results are not replicatable and thus, worthless. Useful test results would allow a reader to build an exact duplicate of your setup, config it identically, and get identical results. Ted OK. The server (192.168.1.200) is FreeBSD 5.4 with Duron 900 and 3C905C The 3com 3c905 is not a very good card under FreeBSD the driver was written without support from 3com and is shakey on a lot of hardware. I would say there's a big question that your server is actually saturating the ethernet. Probably that is why your only getting 90Mbt. NIC; router is m0n0wall (FreeBSD 4.11) with three Intel Pro/100S Nics and Celeron 433; The user computer (192.168.10.249) is Celeron 2400 with winxp and integrated NIC Realtek 8139 series. Switch is CNET CNSH-1600. Once again, the winxp+realtek 8139 is not a particularly steller combo, I would question that this system could saturate the ethernet, either. Diagram: http://me.homelinux.net/network.pdf dmesg from the router: $ dmesg Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p11 #0: Wed Sep 7 13:49:09 CEST 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/compile/M0N0WALL_GENERIC Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182 Hz CPU: Pentium II/Pentium II Xeon/Celeron (434.32-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0x665 Stepping = 5 Features=0x183f9ffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,SEP,MTRR,P GE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,MMX,FXSR real memory = 201326592 (196608K bytes) avail memory = 179142656 (174944K bytes) Preloaded elf kernel kernel at 0xc1006000. Preloaded mfs_root /mfsroot at 0xc100609c. Pentium Pro MTRR support enabled md0: Preloaded image /mfsroot 11534336 bytes at 0xc0504d9c md1: Malloc disk Using $PIR table, 8 entries at 0xc00fdef0 npx0: math processor on motherboard npx0: INT 16 interface pcib0: Intel 82443BX (440 BX) host to PCI bridge on motherboard pci0: PCI bus on pcib0 pcib1: Intel 82443BX (440 BX) PCI-PCI (AGP) bridge at device 1.0 on pci0 pci1: PCI bus on pcib1 isab0: Intel 82371AB PCI to ISA bridge at device 7.0 on pci0 isa0: ISA bus on isab0 atapci0: Intel PIIX4 ATA33 controller port
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
Nothing. From the GUI view it is at 0% of utilisation. Sasa --On 18. december 2005 3:51 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what does the CPU of the router do when your doing that? Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 3:00 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 18. december 2005 2:32 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 2:21 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 18. december 2005 1:33 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 5:25 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 16. december 2005 3:36 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:34 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Ted Hmmm, here is test with iperf what I have done with and without polling: ** Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1088 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 108 MBytes 90.1 Mbits/sec This is when I use Device polling option on m0n0. If I disable this option then my transfer is worse: Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1086 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 69.7 MBytes 58.4 Mbits/sec *** BTW: my router is m0n0wall (FBSD 4.11). what are the cpu speeds and operating systems of all devices in the packet path, what is the make and model of switchs in use, provide dmesg output of the bsd box, a network diagram of the setup, etc. etc. etc. The above test results are not replicatable and thus, worthless. Useful test results would allow a reader to build an exact duplicate of your setup, config it identically, and get identical results. Ted OK. The server (192.168.1.200) is FreeBSD 5.4 with Duron 900 and 3C905C The 3com 3c905 is not a very good card under FreeBSD the driver was written without support from 3com and is shakey on a lot of hardware. I would say there's a big question that your server is actually saturating the ethernet. Probably that is why your only getting 90Mbt. NIC; router is m0n0wall (FreeBSD 4.11) with three Intel Pro/100S Nics and Celeron 433; The user computer (192.168.10.249) is Celeron 2400 with winxp and integrated NIC Realtek 8139 series. Switch is CNET CNSH-1600. Once again, the winxp+realtek 8139 is not a particularly steller combo, I would question that this system could saturate the ethernet, either. Diagram: http://me.homelinux.net/network.pdf dmesg from the router: $ dmesg Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p11 #0: Wed Sep 7 13:49:09 CEST 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/compile/M0N0WALL_GENERIC Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182 Hz CPU: Pentium II/Pentium II Xeon/Celeron (434.32-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0x665 Stepping = 5 Features=0x183f9ffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,SEP,MTRR,P GE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,MMX,FXSR real memory = 201326592 (196608K bytes) avail memory = 179142656 (174944K bytes) Preloaded elf kernel kernel at 0xc1006000. Preloaded mfs_root /mfsroot at 0xc100609c. Pentium Pro MTRR support enabled md0: Preloaded image /mfsroot 11534336 bytes at 0xc0504d9c md1: Malloc disk Using $PIR table, 8 entries at 0xc00fdef0 npx0: math processor on motherboard npx0: INT 16 interface pcib0: Intel 82443BX (440 BX) host to PCI bridge on motherboard pci0: PCI bus on pcib0 pcib1: Intel 82443BX (440 BX) PCI-PCI (AGP) bridge at device 1.0 on pci0 pci1: PCI bus on pcib1 isab0: Intel 82371AB PCI to ISA bridge at device 7.0 on pci0 isa0
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
In looking at this again, I didn't realize you were pinging from Win2K Win2K uses the -f option to set the Do Not Fragment bit, UNIX uses the -f option to flood ping. Win2k ping does not have a flood ping option. You can download a ping for Windows from Microsoft here: http://research.microsoft.com/barc/mbone/mping.aspx that does have an option for flooding traffic. ( set the milliseconds between packets very low) but I have not tested it. Doubtless others are available on the Internet. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 6:07 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Nothing. From the GUI view it is at 0% of utilisation. Sasa --On 18. december 2005 3:51 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what does the CPU of the router do when your doing that? Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 3:00 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 18. december 2005 2:32 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasa Stupar Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 2:21 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 18. december 2005 1:33 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 5:25 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --On 16. december 2005 3:36 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:34 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Ted Hmmm, here is test with iperf what I have done with and without polling: ** Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1088 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 108 MBytes 90.1 Mbits/sec This is when I use Device polling option on m0n0. If I disable this option then my transfer is worse: Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1086 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 69.7 MBytes 58.4 Mbits/sec *** BTW: my router is m0n0wall (FBSD 4.11). what are the cpu speeds and operating systems of all devices in the packet path, what is the make and model of switchs in use, provide dmesg output of the bsd box, a network diagram of the setup, etc. etc. etc. The above test results are not replicatable and thus, worthless. Useful test results would allow a reader to build an exact duplicate of your setup, config it identically, and get identical results. Ted OK. The server (192.168.1.200) is FreeBSD 5.4 with Duron 900 and 3C905C The 3com 3c905 is not a very good card under FreeBSD the driver was written without support from 3com and is shakey on a lot of hardware. I would say there's a big question that your server is actually saturating the ethernet. Probably that is why your only getting 90Mbt. NIC; router is m0n0wall (FreeBSD 4.11) with three Intel Pro/100S Nics and Celeron 433; The user computer (192.168.10.249) is Celeron 2400 with winxp and integrated NIC Realtek 8139 series. Switch is CNET CNSH-1600. Once again, the winxp+realtek 8139 is not a particularly steller combo, I would question that this system could saturate the ethernet, either. Diagram: http://me.homelinux.net/network.pdf dmesg from the router: $ dmesg Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p11 #0: Wed Sep 7 13:49:09 CEST 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/compile/M0N0WALL_GENERIC Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
-Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:34 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Ted Hmmm, here is test with iperf what I have done with and without polling: ** Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1088 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 108 MBytes 90.1 Mbits/sec This is when I use Device polling option on m0n0. If I disable this option then my transfer is worse: Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1086 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 69.7 MBytes 58.4 Mbits/sec *** BTW: my router is m0n0wall (FBSD 4.11). what are the cpu speeds and operating systems of all devices in the packet path, what is the make and model of switchs in use, provide dmesg output of the bsd box, a network diagram of the setup, etc. etc. etc. The above test results are not replicatable and thus, worthless. Useful test results would allow a reader to build an exact duplicate of your setup, config it identically, and get identical results. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
--On 16. december 2005 3:36 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Sasa Stupar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:34 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Ted Hmmm, here is test with iperf what I have done with and without polling: ** Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1088 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 108 MBytes 90.1 Mbits/sec This is when I use Device polling option on m0n0. If I disable this option then my transfer is worse: Client connecting to 192.168.1.200, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) [1816] local 192.168.10.249 port 1086 connected with 192.168.1.200 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1816] 0.0-10.0 sec 69.7 MBytes 58.4 Mbits/sec *** BTW: my router is m0n0wall (FBSD 4.11). what are the cpu speeds and operating systems of all devices in the packet path, what is the make and model of switchs in use, provide dmesg output of the bsd box, a network diagram of the setup, etc. etc. etc. The above test results are not replicatable and thus, worthless. Useful test results would allow a reader to build an exact duplicate of your setup, config it identically, and get identical results. Ted OK. The server (192.168.1.200) is FreeBSD 5.4 with Duron 900 and 3C905C NIC; router is m0n0wall (FreeBSD 4.11) with three Intel Pro/100S Nics and Celeron 433; The user computer (192.168.10.249) is Celeron 2400 with winxp and integrated NIC Realtek 8139 series. Switch is CNET CNSH-1600. Diagram: http://me.homelinux.net/network.pdf dmesg from the router: $ dmesg Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p11 #0: Wed Sep 7 13:49:09 CEST 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/compile/M0N0WALL_GENERIC Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182 Hz CPU: Pentium II/Pentium II Xeon/Celeron (434.32-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0x665 Stepping = 5 Features=0x183f9ffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,MMX,FXSR real memory = 201326592 (196608K bytes) avail memory = 179142656 (174944K bytes) Preloaded elf kernel kernel at 0xc1006000. Preloaded mfs_root /mfsroot at 0xc100609c. Pentium Pro MTRR support enabled md0: Preloaded image /mfsroot 11534336 bytes at 0xc0504d9c md1: Malloc disk Using $PIR table, 8 entries at 0xc00fdef0 npx0: math processor on motherboard npx0: INT 16 interface pcib0: Intel 82443BX (440 BX) host to PCI bridge on motherboard pci0: PCI bus on pcib0 pcib1: Intel 82443BX (440 BX) PCI-PCI (AGP) bridge at device 1.0 on pci0 pci1: PCI bus on pcib1 isab0: Intel 82371AB PCI to ISA bridge at device 7.0 on pci0 isa0: ISA bus on isab0 atapci0: Intel PIIX4 ATA33 controller port 0xf000-0xf00f at device 7.1 on pci0 ata0: at 0x1f0 irq 14 on atapci0 ata1: at 0x170 irq 15 on atapci0 uhci0: Intel 82371AB/EB (PIIX4) USB controller port 0xd000-0xd01f irq 11 at device 7.2 on pci0 usb0: Intel 82371AB/EB (PIIX4) USB controller on uhci0 usb0: USB revision 1.0 uhub0: Intel UHCI root hub, class 9/0, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub0: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered chip1: Intel 82371AB Power management controller port 0x5000-0x500f at device 7.3 on pci0 pci0: unknown card (vendor=0x1274, dev=0x1371) at 8.0 irq 11 fxp0: Intel 82550 Pro/100 Ethernet port 0xd800-0xd83f mem 0xd040-0xd041,0xd046-0xd0460fff irq 10 at device 15.0 on pci0 fxp0: Ethernet address 00:02:b3:62:f6:06 inphy0: i82555 10/100 media interface on miibus0 inphy0: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto fxp1: Intel 82550 Pro/100 Ethernet port 0xdc00-0xdc3f mem 0xd042-0xd043,0xd0462000-0xd0462fff irq 12 at device 16.0 on pci0 fxp1: Ethernet address 00:02:b3:9c:2a:16 inphy1: i82555 10/100 media interface on miibus1 inphy1: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto fxp2: Intel 82550 Pro/100 Ethernet port 0xe000-0xe03f mem 0xd044-0xd045,0xd0461000-0xd0461fff irq 7 at device 19.0 on pci0 fxp2: Ethernet address 00:02:b3:8c:e4:f6 inphy2: i82555 10/100 media interface on miibus2 inphy2: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto pmtimer0 on isa0 fdc0: NEC 72065B or clone at port 0x3f0-0x3f5,0x3f7 irq 6 drq 2 on isa0 fdc0: FIFO enabled, 8 bytes threshold fd0: 1440-KB 3.5 drive on fdc0 drive 0
Re: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
--- Sasa Stupar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --On 15. december 2005 6:33 -0800 Drew Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/15/2005 12:33 AM Sasa Stupar wrote: --On 14. december 2005 20:01 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Danial Thom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:14 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Well, if polling does no good for fxp, due to the hardware doing controlled interrupts, then why does the fxp driver even let you set it as an option? And why have many people who have enabled it on fxp seen an improvement? They haven't, freebsd accounting doesn't work properly with polling enabled, and they don't have the ability to know if they are getting better performance, because they, like you, have no clue what they're doing. How about all the idiots running MP with FreeBSD 4.x, when we know its just a waste of time? they all think they're getting worthwhile performance, because they are clueless. I would call them idiots if they are running MP under FreeBSD and assuming that they are getting better performance without actually testing for it. But if they are just running MP because they happen to be using an MP server, and they want to see if it will work or not, who cares? Maybe its tunable because they guy who wrote the driver made it a tunable? duh. I've yet to see one credible, controlled test that shows polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. Hm, OK I believe that. As I recall I asked you earlier to post the test setup you used for your own tests proving that polling is worse, and you haven't done so yet. Now you are saying you have never seen a credible controlled test that shows polling vs interrupt-driven. So I guess either you were blind when you ran your own tests, or your own tests are not credible, controlled polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. As I have been saying all along. Now your agreeing with me. The only advantage of polling is that it will drop packets instead of going into livelock. The disadvantage is that it will drop packets when you have momentary bursts that would harmlessly put the machine into livelock. Thats about it. Ah, now I think suddenly I see what the chip on your shoulder is. You would rather have your router based on FreeBSD go into livelock while packets stack up, than drop anything. You tested the polling code and found that yipes, it drops packets. What may I ask do you think that a Cisco or other router does when you shove 10Mbt of traffic into it's Ethernet interface destined for a host behind a T1 that is plugged into the other end? (and no, source-quench is not the correct answer) I think the scenario of it being better to momentary go into livelock during an overload is only applicable to one scenario, where the 2 interfaces in the router are the same capacity. As in ethernet-to-ethernet routers. Most certainly not Ethernet-to-serial routers, like what most routers are that aren't on DSL lines. If you have a different understanding then please explain. I've read those datasheets as well and the thing I don't understand is that if you are pumping 100Mbt into an Etherexpress Pro/100 then if the card will not interrupt more than this throttled rate you keep talking about, then the card's interrupt throttling is going to limit the inbound bandwidth to below 100Mbt. Wrong again, Ted. It scares me that you consider yourself knowlegable about this. You can process # interrupts X ring_size packets; not one per interrupt. You're only polling 1000x per second (or whatever you have hz set to), so why do you think that you have to interrupt for every packet to do 100Mb/s? I never said anything about interrupting for every packet, did I? Of course not since I know what your talking about. However, it is you who are throwing around the numbers - or were in your prior post - regarding the fxp driver and hardware. Why should I have to do the work digging around in the datasheets and doing the math? Since you seem to be wanting to argue this from a theory standpoint, then your only option is to === message truncated === message too large for stupid Yahoo mailer Unfortunately your test is not controlled, which is pretty typical of most OS testers. Firstly, efficiency is the goal. How many packets you can pump through a socket interface is not an efficiency measurement. What was the load on the machine during your test? how many polls per second were being used? What was the interrupt rate for the non-polling test? You can't
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
-Original Message- From: Danial Thom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:42 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Danial Thom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:14 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Well, if polling does no good for fxp, due to the hardware doing controlled interrupts, then why does the fxp driver even let you set it as an option? And why have many people who have enabled it on fxp seen an improvement? They haven't, freebsd accounting doesn't work properly with polling enabled, and they don't have the ability to know if they are getting better performance, because they, like you, have no clue what they're doing. How about all the idiots running MP with FreeBSD 4.x, when we know its just a waste of time? they all think they're getting worthwhile performance, because they are clueless. I would call them idiots if they are running MP under FreeBSD and assuming that they are getting better performance without actually testing for it. But if they are just running MP because they happen to be using an MP server, and they want to see if it will work or not, who cares? Maybe its tunable because they guy who wrote the driver made it a tunable? duh. I've yet to see one credible, controlled test that shows polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. Hm, OK I believe that. As I recall I asked you earlier to post the test setup you used for your own tests proving that polling is worse, and you haven't done so yet. Now you are saying you have never seen a credible controlled test that shows polling vs interrupt-driven. So I guess either you were blind when you ran your own tests, or your own tests are not credible, controlled polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. As I have been saying all along. Now your agreeing with me. The only advantage of polling is that it will drop packets instead of going into livelock. The disadvantage is that it will drop packets when you have momentary bursts that would harmlessly put the machine into livelock. Thats about it. Ah, now I think suddenly I see what the chip on your shoulder is. You would rather have your router based on FreeBSD go into livelock while packets stack up, than drop anything. You tested the polling code and found that yipes, it drops packets. What may I ask do you think that a Cisco or other router does when you shove 10Mbt of traffic into it's Ethernet interface destined for a host behind a T1 that is plugged into the other end? (and no, source-quench is not the correct answer) I think the scenario of it being better to momentary go into livelock during an overload is only applicable to one scenario, where the 2 interfaces in the router are the same capacity. As in ethernet-to-ethernet routers. Most certainly not Ethernet-to-serial routers, like what most routers are that aren't on DSL lines. If you have a different understanding then please explain. Yes, going into livelock for a moment is better than dropping a bucket of packets. If your machine is in constant livelock, then its too slow and it doesn't matter whether you run polling or interrupts; you need a new machine. Duh, but that wasn't what I asked. You claim that dropping packets is terrible and routers shouldn't do it, and should go into momentary livelock to avoid it. I asked you what then about the scenario where one interface is slower than the other? How are you going to avoid dropping some packets then? You also can't grasp the point that clock ticks do more than just poll, you're forcing a LOT of other stuff to get done a lot more often than necessary. You also don't understand that polling occurs MILLIONS of times per second on machines that aren't loaded. The HZ setting is the minimum number of polls per second. Its a perfect example of using a setting without having any idea how it works just because some idiot falsely claimed it was better without really testing it. Well, your the idiot that's falsely claiming it's worse without really testing it so what's the difference? As I said before, your arguing theory. And the theory sometimes gets tripped up by what you think is a minor variable that shouldn't matter. You keep claiming the pro-polling people haven't tested, well you haven't tested either. It's just a big air-battle. I've read those datasheets as well and the thing I don't understand is that if you are pumping 100Mbt into an Etherexpress Pro/100 then if the card will not interrupt more than this throttled rate you keep
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
--On 14. december 2005 20:01 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Danial Thom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:14 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Well, if polling does no good for fxp, due to the hardware doing controlled interrupts, then why does the fxp driver even let you set it as an option? And why have many people who have enabled it on fxp seen an improvement? They haven't, freebsd accounting doesn't work properly with polling enabled, and they don't have the ability to know if they are getting better performance, because they, like you, have no clue what they're doing. How about all the idiots running MP with FreeBSD 4.x, when we know its just a waste of time? they all think they're getting worthwhile performance, because they are clueless. I would call them idiots if they are running MP under FreeBSD and assuming that they are getting better performance without actually testing for it. But if they are just running MP because they happen to be using an MP server, and they want to see if it will work or not, who cares? Maybe its tunable because they guy who wrote the driver made it a tunable? duh. I've yet to see one credible, controlled test that shows polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. Hm, OK I believe that. As I recall I asked you earlier to post the test setup you used for your own tests proving that polling is worse, and you haven't done so yet. Now you are saying you have never seen a credible controlled test that shows polling vs interrupt-driven. So I guess either you were blind when you ran your own tests, or your own tests are not credible, controlled polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. As I have been saying all along. Now your agreeing with me. The only advantage of polling is that it will drop packets instead of going into livelock. The disadvantage is that it will drop packets when you have momentary bursts that would harmlessly put the machine into livelock. Thats about it. Ah, now I think suddenly I see what the chip on your shoulder is. You would rather have your router based on FreeBSD go into livelock while packets stack up, than drop anything. You tested the polling code and found that yipes, it drops packets. What may I ask do you think that a Cisco or other router does when you shove 10Mbt of traffic into it's Ethernet interface destined for a host behind a T1 that is plugged into the other end? (and no, source-quench is not the correct answer) I think the scenario of it being better to momentary go into livelock during an overload is only applicable to one scenario, where the 2 interfaces in the router are the same capacity. As in ethernet-to-ethernet routers. Most certainly not Ethernet-to-serial routers, like what most routers are that aren't on DSL lines. If you have a different understanding then please explain. I've read those datasheets as well and the thing I don't understand is that if you are pumping 100Mbt into an Etherexpress Pro/100 then if the card will not interrupt more than this throttled rate you keep talking about, then the card's interrupt throttling is going to limit the inbound bandwidth to below 100Mbt. Wrong again, Ted. It scares me that you consider yourself knowlegable about this. You can process # interrupts X ring_size packets; not one per interrupt. You're only polling 1000x per second (or whatever you have hz set to), so why do you think that you have to interrupt for every packet to do 100Mb/s? I never said anything about interrupting for every packet, did I? Of course not since I know what your talking about. However, it is you who are throwing around the numbers - or were in your prior post - regarding the fxp driver and hardware. Why should I have to do the work digging around in the datasheets and doing the math? Since you seem to be wanting to argue this from a theory standpoint, then your only option is to do the math. Go ahead, look up the datasheet for the 82557. I'm sure it's online somewhere, and tell us what it says about throttled interrupts, and run your numbers. Do you not understand that packet processing is the same whether its done on a clock tick or a hardware interrupt? Do you not understand that a clock tick has more overhead (because of other assigned tasks)? Do you not understand that getting exactly 5000 hardware interrupts is much more efficient than having 5000 clock tick interrupts per second? What part of this don't you understand? Well, one part I don't understand is why when one of those 5000 clock ticks happens and the fxp driver finds no packets to take off the card, that it takes the same amount of time for the driver to process as when the fxp driver finds packets to process. At least, that seems to be what your arguing. As I've stated before once
Re: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
On 12/15/2005 12:33 AM Sasa Stupar wrote: --On 14. december 2005 20:01 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Danial Thom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:14 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Well, if polling does no good for fxp, due to the hardware doing controlled interrupts, then why does the fxp driver even let you set it as an option? And why have many people who have enabled it on fxp seen an improvement? They haven't, freebsd accounting doesn't work properly with polling enabled, and they don't have the ability to know if they are getting better performance, because they, like you, have no clue what they're doing. How about all the idiots running MP with FreeBSD 4.x, when we know its just a waste of time? they all think they're getting worthwhile performance, because they are clueless. I would call them idiots if they are running MP under FreeBSD and assuming that they are getting better performance without actually testing for it. But if they are just running MP because they happen to be using an MP server, and they want to see if it will work or not, who cares? Maybe its tunable because they guy who wrote the driver made it a tunable? duh. I've yet to see one credible, controlled test that shows polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. Hm, OK I believe that. As I recall I asked you earlier to post the test setup you used for your own tests proving that polling is worse, and you haven't done so yet. Now you are saying you have never seen a credible controlled test that shows polling vs interrupt-driven. So I guess either you were blind when you ran your own tests, or your own tests are not credible, controlled polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. As I have been saying all along. Now your agreeing with me. The only advantage of polling is that it will drop packets instead of going into livelock. The disadvantage is that it will drop packets when you have momentary bursts that would harmlessly put the machine into livelock. Thats about it. Ah, now I think suddenly I see what the chip on your shoulder is. You would rather have your router based on FreeBSD go into livelock while packets stack up, than drop anything. You tested the polling code and found that yipes, it drops packets. What may I ask do you think that a Cisco or other router does when you shove 10Mbt of traffic into it's Ethernet interface destined for a host behind a T1 that is plugged into the other end? (and no, source-quench is not the correct answer) I think the scenario of it being better to momentary go into livelock during an overload is only applicable to one scenario, where the 2 interfaces in the router are the same capacity. As in ethernet-to-ethernet routers. Most certainly not Ethernet-to-serial routers, like what most routers are that aren't on DSL lines. If you have a different understanding then please explain. I've read those datasheets as well and the thing I don't understand is that if you are pumping 100Mbt into an Etherexpress Pro/100 then if the card will not interrupt more than this throttled rate you keep talking about, then the card's interrupt throttling is going to limit the inbound bandwidth to below 100Mbt. Wrong again, Ted. It scares me that you consider yourself knowlegable about this. You can process # interrupts X ring_size packets; not one per interrupt. You're only polling 1000x per second (or whatever you have hz set to), so why do you think that you have to interrupt for every packet to do 100Mb/s? I never said anything about interrupting for every packet, did I? Of course not since I know what your talking about. However, it is you who are throwing around the numbers - or were in your prior post - regarding the fxp driver and hardware. Why should I have to do the work digging around in the datasheets and doing the math? Since you seem to be wanting to argue this from a theory standpoint, then your only option is to do the math. Go ahead, look up the datasheet for the 82557. I'm sure it's online somewhere, and tell us what it says about throttled interrupts, and run your numbers. Do you not understand that packet processing is the same whether its done on a clock tick or a hardware interrupt? Do you not understand that a clock tick has more overhead (because of other assigned tasks)? Do you not understand that getting exactly 5000 hardware interrupts is much more efficient than having 5000 clock tick interrupts per second? What part of this don't you understand? Well, one part I don't understand is why when one of those 5000 clock ticks happens and the fxp driver finds no packets to take off the card, that it takes the same amount of time for the driver to process as when the fxp driver finds packets to process. At least, that seems
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
--- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Danial Thom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:14 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Well, if polling does no good for fxp, due to the hardware doing controlled interrupts, then why does the fxp driver even let you set it as an option? And why have many people who have enabled it on fxp seen an improvement? They haven't, freebsd accounting doesn't work properly with polling enabled, and they don't have the ability to know if they are getting better performance, because they, like you, have no clue what they're doing. How about all the idiots running MP with FreeBSD 4.x, when we know its just a waste of time? they all think they're getting worthwhile performance, because they are clueless. I would call them idiots if they are running MP under FreeBSD and assuming that they are getting better performance without actually testing for it. But if they are just running MP because they happen to be using an MP server, and they want to see if it will work or not, who cares? Maybe its tunable because they guy who wrote the driver made it a tunable? duh. I've yet to see one credible, controlled test that shows polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. Hm, OK I believe that. As I recall I asked you earlier to post the test setup you used for your own tests proving that polling is worse, and you haven't done so yet. Now you are saying you have never seen a credible controlled test that shows polling vs interrupt-driven. So I guess either you were blind when you ran your own tests, or your own tests are not credible, controlled polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. As I have been saying all along. Now your agreeing with me. The only advantage of polling is that it will drop packets instead of going into livelock. The disadvantage is that it will drop packets when you have momentary bursts that would harmlessly put the machine into livelock. Thats about it. Ah, now I think suddenly I see what the chip on your shoulder is. You would rather have your router based on FreeBSD go into livelock while packets stack up, than drop anything. You tested the polling code and found that yipes, it drops packets. What may I ask do you think that a Cisco or other router does when you shove 10Mbt of traffic into it's Ethernet interface destined for a host behind a T1 that is plugged into the other end? (and no, source-quench is not the correct answer) I think the scenario of it being better to momentary go into livelock during an overload is only applicable to one scenario, where the 2 interfaces in the router are the same capacity. As in ethernet-to-ethernet routers. Most certainly not Ethernet-to-serial routers, like what most routers are that aren't on DSL lines. If you have a different understanding then please explain. Yes, going into livelock for a moment is better than dropping a bucket of packets. If your machine is in constant livelock, then its too slow and it doesn't matter whether you run polling or interrupts; you need a new machine. You also can't grasp the point that clock ticks do more than just poll, you're forcing a LOT of other stuff to get done a lot more often than necessary. You also don't understand that polling occurs MILLIONS of times per second on machines that aren't loaded. The HZ setting is the minimum number of polls per second. Its a perfect example of using a setting without having any idea how it works just because some idiot falsely claimed it was better without really testing it. I've read those datasheets as well and the thing I don't understand is that if you are pumping 100Mbt into an Etherexpress Pro/100 then if the card will not interrupt more than this throttled rate you keep talking about, then the card's interrupt throttling is going to limit the inbound bandwidth to below 100Mbt. Wrong again, Ted. It scares me that you consider yourself knowlegable about this. You can process #interrupts X ring_size packets; not one per interrupt. You're only polling 1000x per second (or whatever you have hz set to), so why do you think that you have to interrupt for every packet to do 100Mb/s? I never said anything about interrupting for every packet, did I? Of course not since I know what your talking about. You said that the throttled interrupts would keep the controller from being able to do full 100Mb/s, which is wrong. So why don't you just explain what you meant by that. Your not knowledgable or reasonable Ted. You just want me to be wrong, so there's no sense arguing religion. Why don't you ask Matt Dillon about interrupt moderation vs polling, since I'm sure
Re: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
--On 15. december 2005 6:33 -0800 Drew Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/15/2005 12:33 AM Sasa Stupar wrote: --On 14. december 2005 20:01 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Danial Thom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:14 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Well, if polling does no good for fxp, due to the hardware doing controlled interrupts, then why does the fxp driver even let you set it as an option? And why have many people who have enabled it on fxp seen an improvement? They haven't, freebsd accounting doesn't work properly with polling enabled, and they don't have the ability to know if they are getting better performance, because they, like you, have no clue what they're doing. How about all the idiots running MP with FreeBSD 4.x, when we know its just a waste of time? they all think they're getting worthwhile performance, because they are clueless. I would call them idiots if they are running MP under FreeBSD and assuming that they are getting better performance without actually testing for it. But if they are just running MP because they happen to be using an MP server, and they want to see if it will work or not, who cares? Maybe its tunable because they guy who wrote the driver made it a tunable? duh. I've yet to see one credible, controlled test that shows polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. Hm, OK I believe that. As I recall I asked you earlier to post the test setup you used for your own tests proving that polling is worse, and you haven't done so yet. Now you are saying you have never seen a credible controlled test that shows polling vs interrupt-driven. So I guess either you were blind when you ran your own tests, or your own tests are not credible, controlled polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. As I have been saying all along. Now your agreeing with me. The only advantage of polling is that it will drop packets instead of going into livelock. The disadvantage is that it will drop packets when you have momentary bursts that would harmlessly put the machine into livelock. Thats about it. Ah, now I think suddenly I see what the chip on your shoulder is. You would rather have your router based on FreeBSD go into livelock while packets stack up, than drop anything. You tested the polling code and found that yipes, it drops packets. What may I ask do you think that a Cisco or other router does when you shove 10Mbt of traffic into it's Ethernet interface destined for a host behind a T1 that is plugged into the other end? (and no, source-quench is not the correct answer) I think the scenario of it being better to momentary go into livelock during an overload is only applicable to one scenario, where the 2 interfaces in the router are the same capacity. As in ethernet-to-ethernet routers. Most certainly not Ethernet-to-serial routers, like what most routers are that aren't on DSL lines. If you have a different understanding then please explain. I've read those datasheets as well and the thing I don't understand is that if you are pumping 100Mbt into an Etherexpress Pro/100 then if the card will not interrupt more than this throttled rate you keep talking about, then the card's interrupt throttling is going to limit the inbound bandwidth to below 100Mbt. Wrong again, Ted. It scares me that you consider yourself knowlegable about this. You can process # interrupts X ring_size packets; not one per interrupt. You're only polling 1000x per second (or whatever you have hz set to), so why do you think that you have to interrupt for every packet to do 100Mb/s? I never said anything about interrupting for every packet, did I? Of course not since I know what your talking about. However, it is you who are throwing around the numbers - or were in your prior post - regarding the fxp driver and hardware. Why should I have to do the work digging around in the datasheets and doing the math? Since you seem to be wanting to argue this from a theory standpoint, then your only option is to do the math. Go ahead, look up the datasheet for the 82557. I'm sure it's online somewhere, and tell us what it says about throttled interrupts, and run your numbers. Do you not understand that packet processing is the same whether its done on a clock tick or a hardware interrupt? Do you not understand that a clock tick has more overhead (because of other assigned tasks)? Do you not understand that getting exactly 5000 hardware interrupts is much more efficient than having 5000 clock tick interrupts per second? What part of this don't you understand? Well, one part I don't understand is why when one of those 5000 clock ticks happens and the fxp driver finds no packets to take off the card, that it takes the same amount of time for the driver to process
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danial Thom Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 10:46 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Drew Tomlinson Cc: Michael Vince; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Kris Kennaway Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) So specifically WHAT it is doesn't change my claim the FreeBSD 5.x and 6.x suck, at least relative to what you started with. If you take something and make it worse, and seem to have no ability to figure out WHY, then you're incompetent. Its as simple as that. I have posted a reasonable test and results, No you have not. You have posted a general test, you have not posted exactly what you did and with exactly what hardware, nor that hardware's settings. and there are countless complaints about performance. The -questions mailing list is self-selecting, what that means is that you only will see complaints on it. That is it's purpose. What your basically doing is standing at the door of the women's bathroom at the mall, and trying to determine the ratio of men to women in the mall by looking at every person that comes out of that door. I think the fact that every time someone complains Robert Watson tells them to wait for 6.0, or wait for 7.0 is a pretty good indication that things aren't what the Teds and Krises claim. What am I claiming? Danial once again you are proving you are nothing more than a blowhard - you haven't really read anything that I have said. What I have claimed repeatedly is that until you post verifyable, and repeatable benchmarks, along with the test methodology used to arrive at them, that your statements have no credibility. In other words, you have made some interesting accusations, now please get on with some supporting evidence. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danial Thom Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:07 AM To: Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --- Drew Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted Mittelstaedt wrote, On 12/13/2005 12:44 AM: -Original Message- From: Drew Tomlinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 12:30 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Michael Vince; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Kris Kennaway Subject: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) On 12/12/2005 8:13 AM Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Michael, Fundamentally, here's the problem Danial is claiming exists: it takes a certain amount of time to get the packet clocked in from the network into the ethernet receiver. This is hardware dependent and cannot be changed. It takes a certain amount of time to get the packet out of the hardware in the ethernet card into main ram, this also hardware dependent and cannot be changed. (unless the device driver is terribly inefficient, which we will assume it's not) Once in main ram, the information in the packet has to go through a number of code statements. The more code statements the longer the information in the packet is sitting around in the FreeBSD system's memory. It then takes a certain amount of time to get the information out of main memory into the other sending ethernet nic's buffers, and it takes time to get it out of the sending nic back to the wire. Danial is claiming the slowness is in the main ram section of things, not in the ethernet driver code. polling makes the ethernet driver more efficient at high data rates, but it does nothing for the speed of processing within the TCPIP stack itself. At low data rates polling is less efficient than the interrupt method. And unless the nic driver is terribly inefficient to start with, the time it adds to the packet path in the system is minor compared to the time spent in the TCP/IP stack. Ted Thanks for the explanation. So would polling be beneficial or detrimental for a 100 mbps Ethernet card? Yes, if you were running 100Mbt's of bandwidth through it. I assume you mean yes it's beneficial? :) Thats just not true, or at least not globally. The right answer is: It depends on the hardware. Polling should NEVER be used for hardware that has built-in hardware interrupt throttling (such as fxp and em driver cards). polling has a LOT of overhead. Hardware hold offs give you the benefit of controlled interrupt reduction without adulterating your system with tons of extra clock interrupts. This has been discussed over and over, and still some of the people who are supposed to know about this have no clue whatsoever. Well, if polling does no good for fxp, due to the hardware doing controlled interrupts, then why does the fxp driver even let you set it as an option? And why have many people who have enabled it on fxp seen an improvement? I've read those datasheets as well and the thing I don't understand is that if you are pumping 100Mbt into an Etherexpress Pro/100 then if the card will not interrupt more than this throttled rate you keep talking about, then the card's interrupt throttling is going to limit the inbound bandwidth to below 100Mbt. In which case this is not a 10/100 card and Intel is guilty of false advertising and so on, plus nobody would ever report that they could actually get 100Mbt of bandwidth on this card. In other words, a few moments logical thinking would show that this throttling is worthless at high bandwidth and only is going to work at lower bandwidth, where polling overhead is a net lose anyway. polling is ONLY a POSSIBLE advantage is your hardware actually interrupts for every event. Good controllers do not. I don't know the specs of every card/chipset, but with intel cards you definitely do NOT want to use polling, as an example. Regardless of the hardware, if you see a substantial increase with performance its because the OS is broken and not because of the polling, particularly if you have a relatively low volume of traffic. The same number of cpu cycles are needed to process the packets whether you poll or not. As an example, changing the number of receive interrupts per second from 10,000 to 25000 on an em card (4.9 OS, which is known NOT to be broken) pushing 100Kpps yields about a 3% difference in cpu load (no noticable difference in performance). For an average load server doing less than 1K pps, on a modern processor the cpu load difference is not significant enough to make much noticable difference in performance. Here we go again with the hand-waving. Did it ever occur to you to post the actual machine specs of the systems involved? Ted
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
--- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danial Thom Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:07 AM To: Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --- Drew Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted Mittelstaedt wrote, On 12/13/2005 12:44 AM: -Original Message- From: Drew Tomlinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 12:30 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Michael Vince; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Kris Kennaway Subject: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) On 12/12/2005 8:13 AM Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Michael, Fundamentally, here's the problem Danial is claiming exists: it takes a certain amount of time to get the packet clocked in from the network into the ethernet receiver. This is hardware dependent and cannot be changed. It takes a certain amount of time to get the packet out of the hardware in the ethernet card into main ram, this also hardware dependent and cannot be changed. (unless the device driver is terribly inefficient, which we will assume it's not) Once in main ram, the information in the packet has to go through a number of code statements. The more code statements the longer the information in the packet is sitting around in the FreeBSD system's memory. It then takes a certain amount of time to get the information out of main memory into the other sending ethernet nic's buffers, and it takes time to get it out of the sending nic back to the wire. Danial is claiming the slowness is in the main ram section of things, not in the ethernet driver code. polling makes the ethernet driver more efficient at high data rates, but it does nothing for the speed of processing within the TCPIP stack itself. At low data rates polling is less efficient than the interrupt method. And unless the nic driver is terribly inefficient to start with, the time it adds to the packet path in the system is minor compared to the time spent in the TCP/IP stack. Ted Thanks for the explanation. So would polling be beneficial or detrimental for a 100 mbps Ethernet card? Yes, if you were running 100Mbt's of bandwidth through it. I assume you mean yes it's beneficial? :) Thats just not true, or at least not globally. The right answer is: It depends on the hardware. Polling should NEVER be used for hardware that has built-in hardware interrupt throttling (such as fxp and em driver cards). polling has a LOT of overhead. Hardware hold offs give you the benefit of controlled interrupt reduction without adulterating your system with tons of extra clock interrupts. This has been discussed over and over, and still some of the people who are supposed to know about this have no clue whatsoever. Well, if polling does no good for fxp, due to the hardware doing controlled interrupts, then why does the fxp driver even let you set it as an option? And why have many people who have enabled it on fxp seen an improvement? They haven't, freebsd accounting doesn't work properly with polling enabled, and they don't have the ability to know if they are getting better performance, because they, like you, have no clue what they're doing. How about all the idiots running MP with FreeBSD 4.x, when we know its just a waste of time? they all think they're getting worthwhile performance, because they are clueless. Maybe its tunable because they guy who wrote the driver made it a tunable? duh. I've yet to see one credible, controlled test that shows polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. The only advantage of polling is that it will drop packets instead of going into livelock. The disadvantage is that it will drop packets when you have momentary bursts that would harmlessly put the machine into livelock. Thats about it. I've read those datasheets as well and the thing I don't understand is that if you are pumping 100Mbt into an Etherexpress Pro/100 then if the card will not interrupt more than this throttled rate you keep talking about, then the card's interrupt throttling is going to limit the inbound bandwidth to below 100Mbt. Wrong again, Ted. It scares me that you consider yourself knowlegable about this. You can process #interrupts X ring_size packets; not one per interrupt. You're only polling 1000x per second (or whatever you have hz set to), so why do you think that you have to interrupt for every packet to do 100Mb/s? Do you not understand that packet processing is the same whether its done on a clock tick or a hardware interrupt? Do you not understand
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
I also use polling on my Intel Pro/100S and I get inscrease of almoast 100% in speed. OK, My machine is Celeron 433 with 256 MB RAM and it is used as router. With iperf between DMZ and LAN with polling enabled I reach speed of 90 Mbit and without polling I can get speed only about 58 Mbit. So for me polling is good and I'll keep on using it. -- Sasa Stupar ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
-Original Message- From: Danial Thom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:14 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Drew Tomlinson Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Well, if polling does no good for fxp, due to the hardware doing controlled interrupts, then why does the fxp driver even let you set it as an option? And why have many people who have enabled it on fxp seen an improvement? They haven't, freebsd accounting doesn't work properly with polling enabled, and they don't have the ability to know if they are getting better performance, because they, like you, have no clue what they're doing. How about all the idiots running MP with FreeBSD 4.x, when we know its just a waste of time? they all think they're getting worthwhile performance, because they are clueless. I would call them idiots if they are running MP under FreeBSD and assuming that they are getting better performance without actually testing for it. But if they are just running MP because they happen to be using an MP server, and they want to see if it will work or not, who cares? Maybe its tunable because they guy who wrote the driver made it a tunable? duh. I've yet to see one credible, controlled test that shows polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. Hm, OK I believe that. As I recall I asked you earlier to post the test setup you used for your own tests proving that polling is worse, and you haven't done so yet. Now you are saying you have never seen a credible controlled test that shows polling vs interrupt-driven. So I guess either you were blind when you ran your own tests, or your own tests are not credible, controlled polling vs properly tuned interrupt-driven. As I have been saying all along. Now your agreeing with me. The only advantage of polling is that it will drop packets instead of going into livelock. The disadvantage is that it will drop packets when you have momentary bursts that would harmlessly put the machine into livelock. Thats about it. Ah, now I think suddenly I see what the chip on your shoulder is. You would rather have your router based on FreeBSD go into livelock while packets stack up, than drop anything. You tested the polling code and found that yipes, it drops packets. What may I ask do you think that a Cisco or other router does when you shove 10Mbt of traffic into it's Ethernet interface destined for a host behind a T1 that is plugged into the other end? (and no, source-quench is not the correct answer) I think the scenario of it being better to momentary go into livelock during an overload is only applicable to one scenario, where the 2 interfaces in the router are the same capacity. As in ethernet-to-ethernet routers. Most certainly not Ethernet-to-serial routers, like what most routers are that aren't on DSL lines. If you have a different understanding then please explain. I've read those datasheets as well and the thing I don't understand is that if you are pumping 100Mbt into an Etherexpress Pro/100 then if the card will not interrupt more than this throttled rate you keep talking about, then the card's interrupt throttling is going to limit the inbound bandwidth to below 100Mbt. Wrong again, Ted. It scares me that you consider yourself knowlegable about this. You can process #interrupts X ring_size packets; not one per interrupt. You're only polling 1000x per second (or whatever you have hz set to), so why do you think that you have to interrupt for every packet to do 100Mb/s? I never said anything about interrupting for every packet, did I? Of course not since I know what your talking about. However, it is you who are throwing around the numbers - or were in your prior post - regarding the fxp driver and hardware. Why should I have to do the work digging around in the datasheets and doing the math? Since you seem to be wanting to argue this from a theory standpoint, then your only option is to do the math. Go ahead, look up the datasheet for the 82557. I'm sure it's online somewhere, and tell us what it says about throttled interrupts, and run your numbers. Do you not understand that packet processing is the same whether its done on a clock tick or a hardware interrupt? Do you not understand that a clock tick has more overhead (because of other assigned tasks)? Do you not understand that getting exactly 5000 hardware interrupts is much more efficient than having 5000 clock tick interrupts per second? What part of this don't you understand? Well, one part I don't understand is why when one of those 5000 clock ticks happens and the fxp driver finds no packets to take off the card, that it takes the same amount of time for the driver to process as when the fxp driver finds packets to process. At least, that seems to be what your arguing. As I've stated before once, probably twice, polling is obviously less efficient at lower bandwidth
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
-Original Message- From: Drew Tomlinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 12:30 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Michael Vince; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Kris Kennaway Subject: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) On 12/12/2005 8:13 AM Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Michael, Fundamentally, here's the problem Danial is claiming exists: it takes a certain amount of time to get the packet clocked in from the network into the ethernet receiver. This is hardware dependent and cannot be changed. It takes a certain amount of time to get the packet out of the hardware in the ethernet card into main ram, this also hardware dependent and cannot be changed. (unless the device driver is terribly inefficient, which we will assume it's not) Once in main ram, the information in the packet has to go through a number of code statements. The more code statements the longer the information in the packet is sitting around in the FreeBSD system's memory. It then takes a certain amount of time to get the information out of main memory into the other sending ethernet nic's buffers, and it takes time to get it out of the sending nic back to the wire. Danial is claiming the slowness is in the main ram section of things, not in the ethernet driver code. polling makes the ethernet driver more efficient at high data rates, but it does nothing for the speed of processing within the TCPIP stack itself. At low data rates polling is less efficient than the interrupt method. And unless the nic driver is terribly inefficient to start with, the time it adds to the packet path in the system is minor compared to the time spent in the TCP/IP stack. Ted Thanks for the explanation. So would polling be beneficial or detrimental for a 100 mbps Ethernet card? Yes, if you were running 100Mbt's of bandwidth through it. Not sure if 100 mbps is considered high or low speed. I'm specifically interested in NetGear cards using the dc driver or DLink cards using the rl driver. The rl chipset isn't known as a very good chipset. YMMV Some of the Netgear cards use clone 21143 chipsets which are extremely inferior to the real thing. In particular if your Netgear card is using a PNIC chipset it is pretty bad with serious performance penalty. This is documented in Section 4 of the dc manpage. People seem to have good results with polling on the fxp cards. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
-Original Message- From: Danial Thom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:35 PM To: Drew Tomlinson; Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Michael Vince; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --- Drew Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/12/2005 8:13 AM Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Danial is claiming the slowness is in the main ram section of things, not in the ethernet driver code. I don't think I'm claiming that at all. Oh, really, do tell then: The slowness is in the latency and inefficiencies of the scheduler and whatever other kernel stuff (locking, general overheads). Which runs in main ram... The entire point of the tests are that the managing of the packets is a constant, in that its the same hardware and mostly the same code. What I said... Now I suppose its possible that the em driver could just be slower in 5.4 and 6.0, but the code is fundamentally the same, so it should be a constant. So since the processing of the packets is a constant, then if you can process less packets on the same machine the overhead of the OS must be the culprit. And, where again does the OS do it's processing... It could be the code, Well, if it's not, then your explanation and everything you have said up to this point sure strongly implies it. What's wrong Danial, now that you have actually had to think about it, now realizing you have some holes in your bitching? Scared that I'm about ready to start punching holes in your flimsy inferences? Danial, you spewed some accusations about the core team making FreeBSD's network performance slower in the newer versions. As I said before, you haven't posted anything to back this up. I know you think your misunderstood but you fail to realize we all understand what your bitching about very well, and are waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is and start posting some repeatable tests. Until then, your just puffing air. And that goes for the rest of you claiming that the later versions of FreeBSD's network performance are better. You too are puffing air. Start showing some test results or go away. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote, On 12/13/2005 12:44 AM: -Original Message- From: Drew Tomlinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 12:30 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Michael Vince; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Kris Kennaway Subject: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) On 12/12/2005 8:13 AM Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Michael, Fundamentally, here's the problem Danial is claiming exists: it takes a certain amount of time to get the packet clocked in from the network into the ethernet receiver. This is hardware dependent and cannot be changed. It takes a certain amount of time to get the packet out of the hardware in the ethernet card into main ram, this also hardware dependent and cannot be changed. (unless the device driver is terribly inefficient, which we will assume it's not) Once in main ram, the information in the packet has to go through a number of code statements. The more code statements the longer the information in the packet is sitting around in the FreeBSD system's memory. It then takes a certain amount of time to get the information out of main memory into the other sending ethernet nic's buffers, and it takes time to get it out of the sending nic back to the wire. Danial is claiming the slowness is in the main ram section of things, not in the ethernet driver code. polling makes the ethernet driver more efficient at high data rates, but it does nothing for the speed of processing within the TCPIP stack itself. At low data rates polling is less efficient than the interrupt method. And unless the nic driver is terribly inefficient to start with, the time it adds to the packet path in the system is minor compared to the time spent in the TCP/IP stack. Ted Thanks for the explanation. So would polling be beneficial or detrimental for a 100 mbps Ethernet card? Yes, if you were running 100Mbt's of bandwidth through it. I assume you mean yes it's beneficial? :) Not sure if 100 mbps is considered high or low speed. I'm specifically interested in NetGear cards using the dc driver or DLink cards using the rl driver. The rl chipset isn't known as a very good chipset. YMMV Yeah, I've heard that a lot. It was an old card I had lying around and it seems to work OK for me. I'm not using it for anything other that connecting to a 802.11b wireless bridge. Very little traffic. Some of the Netgear cards use clone 21143 chipsets which are extremely inferior to the real thing. In particular if your Netgear card is using a PNIC chipset it is pretty bad with serious performance penalty. This is documented in Section 4 of the dc manpage. This is disapointing. I was under the impression that NetGear cards were pretty good. But now I looked closer at dmesg.boot and see I have the PNIC chipset you mention. I'll read the dc man page to see what penalties I'm suffering. People seem to have good results with polling on the fxp cards. Ah, the built in interface on a HP e60 server I have. It's an old dog used as a file server. It has been nothing but reliable and is still chuggin' along just fine. I'll enable polling on it and see if there's any noticeable improvement in transfer rates. The machine that typically is used for large file transfers to and from the e60 is a Windows XP box that has a Nvidia Nforce 4 chipset and whatever intergrated ethernet port that comes with that chipset. Are there any known issues with this setup that would invalidate my test? Thanks again for the info. Drew Ted -- Visit The Alchemist's Warehouse Magic Tricks, DVDs, Videos, Books, More! http://www.alchemistswarehouse.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[2]: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
Hello, Just a remark. I'm using an Intel PRO/1000 MT Dual Port Gigabit Copper CAT5 Server PCI express Adapter in a box serving as router. Pumping 150Mbps through it with 99% idle CPU and 1% interrupts, polling enabled. It's a litle bit expensive, but it does its job perfectly. -- Best regards, Cezarmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
--- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Danial Thom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:35 PM To: Drew Tomlinson; Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Michael Vince; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) --- Drew Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/12/2005 8:13 AM Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Danial is claiming the slowness is in the main ram section of things, not in the ethernet driver code. I don't think I'm claiming that at all. Oh, really, do tell then: The slowness is in the latency and inefficiencies of the scheduler and whatever other kernel stuff (locking, general overheads). Which runs in main ram... The entire point of the tests are that the managing of the packets is a constant, in that its the same hardware and mostly the same code. What I said... Now I suppose its possible that the em driver could just be slower in 5.4 and 6.0, but the code is fundamentally the same, so it should be a constant. So since the processing of the packets is a constant, then if you can process less packets on the same machine the overhead of the OS must be the culprit. And, where again does the OS do it's processing... It could be the code, Well, if it's not, then your explanation and everything you have said up to this point sure strongly implies it. What's wrong Danial, now that you have actually had to think about it, now realizing you have some holes in your bitching? Scared that I'm about ready to start punching holes in your flimsy inferences? Not really, because its still a FreeBSD release, so whether its the driver or the scheduler or the code generated by the compiler, it still substantially worse than FreeBSD 4.x. And MP is SLOWER than UP for many functions. So specifically WHAT it is doesn't change my claim the FreeBSD 5.x and 6.x suck, at least relative to what you started with. If you take something and make it worse, and seem to have no ability to figure out WHY, then you're incompetent. Its as simple as that. I have posted a reasonable test and results, and there are countless complaints about performance. I think the fact that every time someone complains Robert Watson tells them to wait for 6.0, or wait for 7.0 is a pretty good indication that things aren't what the Teds and Krises claim. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
--- Drew Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted Mittelstaedt wrote, On 12/13/2005 12:44 AM: -Original Message- From: Drew Tomlinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 12:30 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Michael Vince; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Kris Kennaway Subject: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) On 12/12/2005 8:13 AM Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Michael, Fundamentally, here's the problem Danial is claiming exists: it takes a certain amount of time to get the packet clocked in from the network into the ethernet receiver. This is hardware dependent and cannot be changed. It takes a certain amount of time to get the packet out of the hardware in the ethernet card into main ram, this also hardware dependent and cannot be changed. (unless the device driver is terribly inefficient, which we will assume it's not) Once in main ram, the information in the packet has to go through a number of code statements. The more code statements the longer the information in the packet is sitting around in the FreeBSD system's memory. It then takes a certain amount of time to get the information out of main memory into the other sending ethernet nic's buffers, and it takes time to get it out of the sending nic back to the wire. Danial is claiming the slowness is in the main ram section of things, not in the ethernet driver code. polling makes the ethernet driver more efficient at high data rates, but it does nothing for the speed of processing within the TCPIP stack itself. At low data rates polling is less efficient than the interrupt method. And unless the nic driver is terribly inefficient to start with, the time it adds to the packet path in the system is minor compared to the time spent in the TCP/IP stack. Ted Thanks for the explanation. So would polling be beneficial or detrimental for a 100 mbps Ethernet card? Yes, if you were running 100Mbt's of bandwidth through it. I assume you mean yes it's beneficial? :) Thats just not true, or at least not globally. The right answer is: It depends on the hardware. Polling should NEVER be used for hardware that has built-in hardware interrupt throttling (such as fxp and em driver cards). polling has a LOT of overhead. Hardware hold offs give you the benefit of controlled interrupt reduction without adulterating your system with tons of extra clock interrupts. This has been discussed over and over, and still some of the people who are supposed to know about this have no clue whatsoever. polling is ONLY a POSSIBLE advantage is your hardware actually interrupts for every event. Good controllers do not. I don't know the specs of every card/chipset, but with intel cards you definitely do NOT want to use polling, as an example. Regardless of the hardware, if you see a substantial increase with performance its because the OS is broken and not because of the polling, particularly if you have a relatively low volume of traffic. The same number of cpu cycles are needed to process the packets whether you poll or not. As an example, changing the number of receive interrupts per second from 10,000 to 25000 on an em card (4.9 OS, which is known NOT to be broken) pushing 100Kpps yields about a 3% difference in cpu load (no noticable difference in performance). For an average load server doing less than 1K pps, on a modern processor the cpu load difference is not significant enough to make much noticable difference in performance. Of course anyone using a realtek or cheap controller on an expensive machine is just a plain fool; spend the extra relative pennies for a controller that actually works properly. I'm amazed at the number of idiots running MP machines with cheap ethernet controllers. Its like putting $25. tires on a porche. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re[2]: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
--- Cezar Fistik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Just a remark. I'm using an Intel PRO/1000 MT Dual Port Gigabit Copper CAT5 Server PCI express Adapter in a box serving as router. Pumping 150Mbps through it with 99% idle CPU and 1% interrupts, polling enabled. It's a litle bit expensive, but it does its job perfectly. If you read my last post about polling with intel cards, you're realize just how foolish your analysis is. Danial __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Drew Tomlinson Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 6:48 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Michael Vince; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) Ted Mittelstaedt wrote, On 12/13/2005 12:44 AM: -Original Message- From: Drew Tomlinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 12:30 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Michael Vince; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Kris Kennaway Subject: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song) On 12/12/2005 8:13 AM Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Michael, Fundamentally, here's the problem Danial is claiming exists: it takes a certain amount of time to get the packet clocked in from the network into the ethernet receiver. This is hardware dependent and cannot be changed. It takes a certain amount of time to get the packet out of the hardware in the ethernet card into main ram, this also hardware dependent and cannot be changed. (unless the device driver is terribly inefficient, which we will assume it's not) Once in main ram, the information in the packet has to go through a number of code statements. The more code statements the longer the information in the packet is sitting around in the FreeBSD system's memory. It then takes a certain amount of time to get the information out of main memory into the other sending ethernet nic's buffers, and it takes time to get it out of the sending nic back to the wire. Danial is claiming the slowness is in the main ram section of things, not in the ethernet driver code. polling makes the ethernet driver more efficient at high data rates, but it does nothing for the speed of processing within the TCPIP stack itself. At low data rates polling is less efficient than the interrupt method. And unless the nic driver is terribly inefficient to start with, the time it adds to the packet path in the system is minor compared to the time spent in the TCP/IP stack. Ted Thanks for the explanation. So would polling be beneficial or detrimental for a 100 mbps Ethernet card? Yes, if you were running 100Mbt's of bandwidth through it. I assume you mean yes it's beneficial? :) Yes. :-) Not sure if 100 mbps is considered high or low speed. I'm specifically interested in NetGear cards using the dc driver or DLink cards using the rl driver. The rl chipset isn't known as a very good chipset. YMMV Yeah, I've heard that a lot. It was an old card I had lying around and it seems to work OK for me. I'm not using it for anything other that connecting to a 802.11b wireless bridge. Very little traffic. This post is passing through 2 of these cards on my home BSD router. Fortunately these days since so many mboards are coming with onboard ethernet, the used market is awash in nice PCI ethernet cards. Some of the Netgear cards use clone 21143 chipsets which are extremely inferior to the real thing. In particular if your Netgear card is using a PNIC chipset it is pretty bad with serious performance penalty. This is documented in Section 4 of the dc manpage. This is disapointing. I was under the impression that NetGear cards were pretty good. But now I looked closer at dmesg.boot and see I have the PNIC chipset you mention. I'll read the dc man page to see what penalties I'm suffering. People seem to have good results with polling on the fxp cards. Ah, the built in interface on a HP e60 server I have. It's an old dog used as a file server. It has been nothing but reliable and is still chuggin' along just fine. I'll enable polling on it and see if there's any noticeable improvement in transfer rates. The machine that typically is used for large file transfers to and from the e60 is a Windows XP box that has a Nvidia Nforce 4 chipset and whatever intergrated ethernet port that comes with that chipset. Are there any known issues with this setup that would invalidate my test? Yes. The old dog may not be able to take packets off the fxp chip fast enough if your hitting it with 100Mbt of data - which your Nforce chipset running on a nice new multigigahertz mboard is probably able to do. This is a CPU speed thing not an architecture thing, and polling won't make any difference. But, OTOH, windows is pretty inefficient so the network performance of a multigigahertz windows box might just equal that of a under-a-gigahertz mboard running UNIX. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
What about just turning on Polling? I have polling turned out for a router and all I get is gigabit performance. I have tested it with a wire variety of tests from basic fetch tests from a FreeBSD client box via a FreeBSD router (with polling) to another FreeBSD box and all I got was gigabit performance in either 'ab' tests (would always gave 114megabytes/sec, or even just doing a 'fetch' of a single 1gig file I could get up to around 90 megabytes/sec which is largely file system read performance limited over network performance limited. Its the same with my Samba server sure without polling I get quite ordinary network performance but when I turn on polling its appears to be limited by the gigabit cable quality setup and the switch and quality of hardware like using Intel em gigabit ethernet devices. I agree that networking performance is really important and I do agree that FreeBSD out of the box doesn't perform as well as it could in those areas but there are some solutions for it that fill the gaps for all the situations I have faced, I plan to use them for as long as I need till things like interrupt latencies can be over come. People should enjoy FreeBSD for what it is, something thats not holding you back anywhere, there are countless examples. There is no one trying to design a system to squeeze money out of you, their not trying to force you to buy a rpm up2date system. They aren't holding you down with package choices such as being stuck on a old version of apache 2.0.x that just gets 'security' patched and never gets a version increment so you miss out of performance improvements of a particualy module of the stable Apache 2.0.x series, just so they can try and sell you a new version of CD so you can do a binary upgrade, the list can go forever. These systems are designed to control you and at the same time limit your possibilities because they 'fear' loosing that control of you, FreeBSD has no 'fear' riddled/limiting motivations because it has no evil intentions, and just like real freedom look at your choices you get. Fear is the path to the darkside. Alright I am going off topic, what I am trying to say is I think you are entiled to say what you like, I have sometimes thought in somewhat similar ways, but I also believe you should try and be happy with what you get from FreeBSD and if you really want things to move on then one of the best things that can be done is either raising funds for developers to work on it or providing code your self. Mike Danial Thom wrote: Also, since you don't see to understand the test, bridging is not routing. Its a rote function of moving packets from one interface to another with very little overhead. Its purely interrupt driven, so the kernel's latencies in processing interrupts is well exercised. Its a good test because, unlike crap like netperf, it doesn't involve sockets or any userland tasks. I know you're not a real engineer Kris, so I don't expect you to understand, but you also aren't qualified to discredit the test, since you don't know a damn thing about testing. I know you enjoy being the one-eyed man in the land of the blind on this list Kris, But I doubt people are stupid enough to buy into your continued propaganda. There isn't one credible test that shows that FreeBSD MP is worth any consideration as a good performer, so it seems doubtful that anyone with half a brain thinks it is. Everything today is networking. What good is a fast filesystem if it sits on a klunky kernel or slow networking system? Who's going to build a big honking MP server if is can't handle more network traffic than a good UP system? Do you have a volkwagon engine in your Porche, Kris? The problem with Kris is that he thinks that if his car has a really cool radio that people will buy it, even those its slow as shit. That may be fine for the kind of guys that hang out on the freebsd-questions list, or for little old ladies. But its not fine with the kind of people that used to rely on FreeBSD for serious networking tasks. Kris is just a PR front man for a team of developers that is lost. Their theory on how to build a better mousetrap for MP is completely wrong, and now they're going to try something else, using the entire FreeBSD community as guinea pigs. First 5.4 was the answer. Then 6.0. Now it looks like 6.0 sucks too. Its a damn shame. DT ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Freebsd Theme Song
Michael, Fundamentally, here's the problem Danial is claiming exists: it takes a certain amount of time to get the packet clocked in from the network into the ethernet receiver. This is hardware dependent and cannot be changed. It takes a certain amount of time to get the packet out of the hardware in the ethernet card into main ram, this also hardware dependent and cannot be changed. (unless the device driver is terribly inefficient, which we will assume it's not) Once in main ram, the information in the packet has to go through a number of code statements. The more code statements the longer the information in the packet is sitting around in the FreeBSD system's memory. It then takes a certain amount of time to get the information out of main memory into the other sending ethernet nic's buffers, and it takes time to get it out of the sending nic back to the wire. Danial is claiming the slowness is in the main ram section of things, not in the ethernet driver code. polling makes the ethernet driver more efficient at high data rates, but it does nothing for the speed of processing within the TCPIP stack itself. At low data rates polling is less efficient than the interrupt method. And unless the nic driver is terribly inefficient to start with, the time it adds to the packet path in the system is minor compared to the time spent in the TCP/IP stack. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Vince Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 3:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Freebsd Theme Song What about just turning on Polling? I have polling turned out for a router and all I get is gigabit performance. I have tested it with a wire variety of tests from basic fetch tests from a FreeBSD client box via a FreeBSD router (with polling) to another FreeBSD box and all I got was gigabit performance in either 'ab' tests (would always gave 114megabytes/sec, or even just doing a 'fetch' of a single 1gig file I could get up to around 90 megabytes/sec which is largely file system read performance limited over network performance limited. Its the same with my Samba server sure without polling I get quite ordinary network performance but when I turn on polling its appears to be limited by the gigabit cable quality setup and the switch and quality of hardware like using Intel em gigabit ethernet devices. I agree that networking performance is really important and I do agree that FreeBSD out of the box doesn't perform as well as it could in those areas but there are some solutions for it that fill the gaps for all the situations I have faced, I plan to use them for as long as I need till things like interrupt latencies can be over come. People should enjoy FreeBSD for what it is, something thats not holding you back anywhere, there are countless examples. There is no one trying to design a system to squeeze money out of you, their not trying to force you to buy a rpm up2date system. They aren't holding you down with package choices such as being stuck on a old version of apache 2.0.x that just gets 'security' patched and never gets a version increment so you miss out of performance improvements of a particualy module of the stable Apache 2.0.x series, just so they can try and sell you a new version of CD so you can do a binary upgrade, the list can go forever. These systems are designed to control you and at the same time limit your possibilities because they 'fear' loosing that control of you, FreeBSD has no 'fear' riddled/limiting motivations because it has no evil intentions, and just like real freedom look at your choices you get. Fear is the path to the darkside. Alright I am going off topic, what I am trying to say is I think you are entiled to say what you like, I have sometimes thought in somewhat similar ways, but I also believe you should try and be happy with what you get from FreeBSD and if you really want things to move on then one of the best things that can be done is either raising funds for developers to work on it or providing code your self. Mike Danial Thom wrote: Also, since you don't see to understand the test, bridging is not routing. Its a rote function of moving packets from one interface to another with very little overhead. Its purely interrupt driven, so the kernel's latencies in processing interrupts is well exercised. Its a good test because, unlike crap like netperf, it doesn't involve sockets or any userland tasks. I know you're not a real engineer Kris, so I don't expect you to understand, but you also aren't qualified to discredit the test, since you don't know a damn thing about testing. I know you enjoy being the one-eyed man in the land of the blind on this list Kris, But I doubt people are stupid enough to buy into your continued propaganda. There isn't one credible test that shows that FreeBSD MP is worth any consideration as a good performer, so it seems
Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
On 12/12/2005 8:13 AM Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Michael, Fundamentally, here's the problem Danial is claiming exists: it takes a certain amount of time to get the packet clocked in from the network into the ethernet receiver. This is hardware dependent and cannot be changed. It takes a certain amount of time to get the packet out of the hardware in the ethernet card into main ram, this also hardware dependent and cannot be changed. (unless the device driver is terribly inefficient, which we will assume it's not) Once in main ram, the information in the packet has to go through a number of code statements. The more code statements the longer the information in the packet is sitting around in the FreeBSD system's memory. It then takes a certain amount of time to get the information out of main memory into the other sending ethernet nic's buffers, and it takes time to get it out of the sending nic back to the wire. Danial is claiming the slowness is in the main ram section of things, not in the ethernet driver code. polling makes the ethernet driver more efficient at high data rates, but it does nothing for the speed of processing within the TCPIP stack itself. At low data rates polling is less efficient than the interrupt method. And unless the nic driver is terribly inefficient to start with, the time it adds to the packet path in the system is minor compared to the time spent in the TCP/IP stack. Ted Thanks for the explanation. So would polling be beneficial or detrimental for a 100 mbps Ethernet card? Not sure if 100 mbps is considered high or low speed. I'm specifically interested in NetGear cards using the dc driver or DLink cards using the rl driver. Thanks, Drew -- Visit The Alchemist's Warehouse Magic Tricks, DVDs, Videos, Books, More! http://www.alchemistswarehouse.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
--- Drew Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/12/2005 8:13 AM Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Michael, Fundamentally, here's the problem Danial is claiming exists: it takes a certain amount of time to get the packet clocked in from the network into the ethernet receiver. This is hardware dependent and cannot be changed. It takes a certain amount of time to get the packet out of the hardware in the ethernet card into main ram, this also hardware dependent and cannot be changed. (unless the device driver is terribly inefficient, which we will assume it's not) Once in main ram, the information in the packet has to go through a number of code statements. The more code statements the longer the information in the packet is sitting around in the FreeBSD system's memory. It then takes a certain amount of time to get the information out of main memory into the other sending ethernet nic's buffers, and it takes time to get it out of the sending nic back to the wire. Danial is claiming the slowness is in the main ram section of things, not in the ethernet driver code. polling makes the ethernet driver more efficient at high data rates, but it does nothing for the speed of processing within the TCPIP stack itself. At low data rates polling is less efficient than the interrupt method. And unless the nic driver is terribly inefficient to start with, the time it adds to the packet path in the system is minor compared to the time spent in the TCP/IP stack. Ted Thanks for the explanation. So would polling be beneficial or detrimental for a 100 mbps Ethernet card? Not sure if 100 mbps is considered high or low speed. I'm specifically interested in NetGear cards using the dc driver or DLink cards using the rl driver. I don't think I'm claiming that at all. The slowness is in the latency and inefficiencies of the scheduler and whatever other kernel stuff (locking, general overheads). The entire point of the tests are that the managing of the packets is a constant, in that its the same hardware and mostly the same code. Now I suppose its possible that the em driver could just be slower in 5.4 and 6.0, but the code is fundamentally the same, so it should be a constant. So since the processing of the packets is a constant, then if you can process less packets on the same machine the overhead of the OS must be the culprit. It could be the code, particularly if you've compiled with a different compiler, but there are only slight variations in code performance generally, unless some macro was changed that say, efficts 100s of thousands of I/O operations per second and adds a few cycles to each. Polling is only beneficial if your ethernet card actually interrupts for every event, which few likely do. Intel cards (fxp and em driver) have built-in hold offs so you get the supposed benefits of polling without all the overhead. fxp cards will never interrupt more then 6000 times per second, and em cards have a tunable with the default at 8000. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Freebsd Theme Song
Kevin, I think your confused, this is the FreeBSD Questions mailing list theme song, not the FreeBSD Operating System theme song. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Kinsey Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 9:35 PM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Freebsd Theme Song Hope this saves somebody a few keystrokes: * VI * #!/bin/sh # themesong ... enables you to quickly create a singable # ode to your favorite FreeBSD pet peeve. Add it, along with # mail(1) to your crontab to really annoy list members. # # License: BSD, of course. Additions welcome, provided # the meet with the goals of the Project. if [ $OSTYPE != FreeBSD ]; then echo Wrong O.S. --- Gritch on your own project/distro's list! exit 1 fi case $1 in -c) cat /COPYRIGHT exit 0;; -C) cat /COPYRIGHT exit 0;; # let the GNU people gritch too; but they won't like this part --copyright) cat /COPYRIGHT exit 0;; esac if [ $1 ]; then echo THE BIKESHED SONG sung to 'You are my Sunshine' and humbly submitted as a candidate in the soon-to-be-announced FreeBSD Theme Song Contest (but definitely not in any code competitions...) '$1' is my bikeshed, my only bikeshed '$1' makes me happy to gritch and moan; You'll never know, friend, how much I loathe '$1' Won't you please leave my '$1' alone!? else echo Usage: themesong foo ---where 'foo' is a description of your pet peeve with this O.S., e.g. 'themesong networking' fi * DE * :D Kevin Kinsey -- THE DAILY PLANET SUPERMAN SAVES DESSERT! Plans to Eat it later ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 12/9/2005 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
--- Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 01:14:18PM -0800, Danial Thom wrote: Well thats just hogwash Kris. Pure bridging performance is a measure of the efficiency of the kernel to do rote tasks like respond to interrupts, and the latencies in performing those tasks. Its the best way, IMO, to exercise and measure the efficiency of an isolated kernel. It requires no userland activity, so your results aren't muddled by millions of system calls. Its a way to compare apples to apples, which is how good testing is done. As long as you don't have your filesystem on a network, you're in good shape. But thats not even the point. The point is that the purpose of tearing apart 4.x was to go MP, and MP performance is dismill across the board. This statement is simply false. It's actually quite funny to read. For the readers at home: Denial is once again taking his narrow view of the world (everything about the OS is accurately measured by how fast the kernel routes network packets!) and extrapolating it to infinity, then jumping up and down about it. Whats false about it, Kris? First of all, I didn't say that everything about the kernel can be accurately measured by such a test, so why did you twist it to fit your agenda? Its a good way to test the interrupt and process switching mechanisms in an isolated kernel. Also, since you don't see to understand the test, bridging is not routing. Its a rote function of moving packets from one interface to another with very little overhead. Its purely interrupt driven, so the kernel's latencies in processing interrupts is well exercised. Its a good test because, unlike crap like netperf, it doesn't involve sockets or any userland tasks. I know you're not a real engineer Kris, so I don't expect you to understand, but you also aren't qualified to discredit the test, since you don't know a damn thing about testing. I know you enjoy being the one-eyed man in the land of the blind on this list Kris, But I doubt people are stupid enough to buy into your continued propaganda. There isn't one credible test that shows that FreeBSD MP is worth any consideration as a good performer, so it seems doubtful that anyone with half a brain thinks it is. Everything today is networking. What good is a fast filesystem if it sits on a klunky kernel or slow networking system? Who's going to build a big honking MP server if is can't handle more network traffic than a good UP system? Do you have a volkwagon engine in your Porche, Kris? The problem with Kris is that he thinks that if his car has a really cool radio that people will buy it, even those its slow as shit. That may be fine for the kind of guys that hang out on the freebsd-questions list, or for little old ladies. But its not fine with the kind of people that used to rely on FreeBSD for serious networking tasks. Kris is just a PR front man for a team of developers that is lost. Their theory on how to build a better mousetrap for MP is completely wrong, and now they're going to try something else, using the entire FreeBSD community as guinea pigs. First 5.4 was the answer. Then 6.0. Now it looks like 6.0 sucks too. Its a damn shame. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
Danial Thom wrote: developers that is lost. Their theory on how to build a better mousetrap for MP is completely wrong, and now they're going to try something else, using the entire FreeBSD community as guinea pigs. First 5.4 was the answer. Then 6.0. Now it looks like 6.0 sucks too. Its a damn shame. Question: how's DragonFly looking on this score? I realise it's not production ready, but the project intrigues me. - d. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
Danial Thom wrote: Kris is just a PR front man for a team of developers that is lost. Their theory on how to build a better mousetrap for MP is completely wrong, and now they're going to try something else, using the entire FreeBSD community as guinea pigs. First 5.4 was the answer. Then 6.0. Now it looks like 6.0 sucks too. Its a damn shame. DT IF you are such a man that can actually call himself an engineer - why hide behind Yahoo mail? Next, IF you are as you claim to be - WHY are you not on the team or at least contributing code? To insult one person for not seeing your point of view is a show of closed mindedness - to insult a whole list of users ... Well, I do think that speaks volumes about you - as a whole. If you feel the need to insult Kris - keep it off-list. If you feel the need to insult the rest of us, you may be better off seeking help in the real world and moving on. Why would you continually expose yourself to us if we make you that unhappy? Or - is it a craving you need to satisfy by either bitching and moaning or insulting us to make yourself feel superior? If that's the case - then professional help is for you. Seek it, feel better about yourself - and move on. -- Best regards, Chris A Smith and Wesson beats four aces. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
Because those of us with real jobs are required to do so. Kris doesn't just not see my point. If you can't see that then you can't be reasoned with either. --- Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Danial Thom wrote: Kris is just a PR front man for a team of developers that is lost. Their theory on how to build a better mousetrap for MP is completely wrong, and now they're going to try something else, using the entire FreeBSD community as guinea pigs. First 5.4 was the answer. Then 6.0. Now it looks like 6.0 sucks too. Its a damn shame. DT IF you are such a man that can actually call himself an engineer - why hide behind Yahoo mail? Next, IF you are as you claim to be - WHY are you not on the team or at least contributing code? To insult one person for not seeing your point of view is a show of closed mindedness - to insult a whole list of users ... Well, I do think that speaks volumes about you - as a whole. If you feel the need to insult Kris - keep it off-list. If you feel the need to insult the rest of us, you may be better off seeking help in the real world and moving on. Why would you continually expose yourself to us if we make you that unhappy? Or - is it a craving you need to satisfy by either bitching and moaning or insulting us to make yourself feel superior? If that's the case - then professional help is for you. Seek it, feel better about yourself - and move on. -- Best regards, Chris A Smith and Wesson beats four aces. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
Danial Thom wrote: Kris is just a PR front man for a team of developers that is lost. Their theory on how to build a better mousetrap for MP is completely wrong, and now they're going to try something else, using the entire FreeBSD community as guinea pigs. First 5.4 was the answer. Then 6.0. Now it looks like 6.0 sucks too. Its a damn shame. DT IF you are such a man that can actually call himself an engineer - why hide behind Yahoo mail? Next, IF you are as you claim to be - WHY are you not on the team or at least contributing code? To insult one person for not seeing your point of view is a show of closed mindedness - to insult a whole list of users ... Well, I do think that speaks volumes about you - as a whole. If you feel the need to insult Kris - keep it off-list. If you feel the need to insult the rest of us, you may be better off seeking help in the real world and moving on. Why would you continually expose yourself to us if we make you that unhappy? Or - is it a craving you need to satisfy by either bitching and moaning or insulting us to make yourself feel superior? If that's the case - then professional help is for you. Seek it, feel better about yourself - and move on. -- Best regards, Chris Because those of us with real jobs are required to do so. Kris doesn't just not see my point. If you can't see that then you can't be reasoned with either. See - there you go. The need to belittle. those of us with real job I guess all of us that have legit email address and NOT any of the freebie ones don't have legit jobs. I assume that's how you meant it. It does not matter whether I see your point or Kris's. The point that I'm making is simply this - if all that disagree with your point of view, are the ones that can't be reasoned with. That my friend - is surely showing us that YOU can't be reasoned with. It's either your point of view or not. You are right, and if we can't see it or don't agree, then we're wrong and can't be dealt with. You my friend, NEED that professional help. I think I am beginning to see why you use a freebie email address. Case in point - if your employer were to see that it's really you - they might see that you may need some help. Just an observation - from someone that you can't reason with, and most likely - don't have a real job because I don't have a Yahoo email address. -- Best regards, Chris Don't let your superiors know you're better than they are. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
--- David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Danial Thom wrote: developers that is lost. Their theory on how to build a better mousetrap for MP is completely wrong, and now they're going to try something else, using the entire FreeBSD community as guinea pigs. First 5.4 was the answer. Then 6.0. Now it looks like 6.0 sucks too. Its a damn shame. Question: how's DragonFly looking on this score? I realise it's not production ready, but the project intrigues me. For UP, they are about the same as Freebsd, performance-wise. DP DFKY is already much better, at least from a consistency standpoint. With FreeBSD some things are actually slower DP than UP. At least DFLY has somewhat linear performance, although far from optimal. Of course FreeBSD has more bells and whistles that work, as DFLY is not focused on features at the moment. Of course Matt is difficult to convince of anything, and he's trying to do everything by himself. He has tremendous strengths but will never admit to his areas of weakness, which is a big problem. But I think fundamentally their approach is a good one. Its going to be a lot easier for DFLY to adjust on the fly then FreeBSD. FreeBSD is just a big mess, IMO. But I may retire before either of them are what they hope to be. And I'm not that old :-) anyone tested OPenBSD lately? DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 06:33:49AM -0800, Danial Thom wrote: But thats not even the point. The point is that the purpose of tearing apart 4.x was to go MP, and MP performance is dismill across the board. This statement is simply false. It's actually quite funny to read. Whats false about it, Kris? I've quoted it again for you above. When you take your packet bridging blinders off, there are many performance improvements to be measured from SMP kernels (and UP, for that matter) on FreeBSD 6.0 compared to 4.11. Filesystem performance, for one. FreeBSD 6 is 30% faster than 4.11 at filesystem write operations (extracting a large tarball full of small files and many subdirectories) with an amr disk array on the same UP system. On this hardware FreeBSD 4.11 is unable to make effective use of a second CPU on the same test (it's often slightly slower); FreeBSD 6.0 receives a 10-15% boost on this workload from a second CPU (this seems to be limited by hardware access constraints - the amr hardware API does not encourage concurrency). Performance on a benchmark that does a lot of parallel filesystem reads and forks tens of thousands of processes (ports collection INDEX builds) is 25% faster on 6.0 than 5.4, and is about 3 times faster under SMP than UP on a 4-CPU machine. On a 4-CPU amd64 machine running 6.0, concurrent write performance to a md is 2.7 times faster under SMP than UP. On a 14-CPU sparc64 machine it is 6.1 times faster (and it would be higher except the very low memory bandwidth and 400MHz CPU speed cause some of the kernel threads to saturate easily). But of course, Denial tells us that none of this means anything about FreeBSD performance and scalability, because it doesn't help him with the only thing he cares about, which is to sell systems that bridge high-speed networks. Kris pgp5viM3JQCsq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
Kris Kennaway wrote: But of course, Denial tells us that none of this means anything about FreeBSD performance and scalability, because it doesn't help him with the only thing he cares about, which is to sell systems that bridge high-speed networks. Kris Observation: His name - Denial From Dictionary.com: Entries found for denial. de·ni·al Audio pronunciation of denial ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-nl) n. 1. A refusal to comply with or satisfy a request. 2. 1. A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction. 2. Law. The opposing by a defendant of an allegation of the plaintiff. 3. 1. A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief. 2. Psychology. An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings. 4. The act of disowning or disavowing; repudiation. 5. Abstinence; self-denial. [From deny.] -- Best regards, Chris No news is ... impossible. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
Chris wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: But of course, Denial tells us that none of this means anything about FreeBSD performance and scalability, because it doesn't help him with the only thing he cares about, which is to sell systems that bridge high-speed networks. Kris Observation: His name - Denial From Dictionary.com: Entries found for denial. de·ni·al Audio pronunciation of denial ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-nl) n. 1. A refusal to comply with or satisfy a request. 2. 1. A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction. 2. Law. The opposing by a defendant of an allegation of the plaintiff. 3. 1. A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief. 2. Psychology. An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings. 4. The act of disowning or disavowing; repudiation. 5. Abstinence; self-denial. [From deny.] Ooops - my bad. I took the nam in the message and not the actual Sorry - It's Danial -- Best regards, Chris No news is ... impossible. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Freebsd Theme Song
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kris Kennaway Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 12:13 PM To: Danial Thom Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Freebsd Theme Song On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 06:33:49AM -0800, Danial Thom wrote: But thats not even the point. The point is that the purpose of tearing apart 4.x was to go MP, and MP performance is dismill across the board. This statement is simply false. It's actually quite funny to read. Whats false about it, Kris? I've quoted it again for you above. When you take your packet bridging blinders off, there are many performance improvements to be measured from SMP kernels (and UP, for that matter) on FreeBSD 6.0 compared to 4.11. Filesystem performance, for one. FreeBSD 6 is 30% faster than 4.11 at filesystem write operations (extracting a large tarball full of small files and many subdirectories) with an amr disk array on the same UP system. On this hardware FreeBSD 4.11 is unable to make effective use of a second CPU on the same test (it's often slightly slower); FreeBSD 6.0 receives a 10-15% boost on this workload from a second CPU (this seems to be limited by hardware access constraints - the amr hardware API does not encourage concurrency). Performance on a benchmark that does a lot of parallel filesystem reads and forks tens of thousands of processes (ports collection INDEX builds) is 25% faster on 6.0 than 5.4, and is about 3 times faster under SMP than UP on a 4-CPU machine. On a 4-CPU amd64 machine running 6.0, concurrent write performance to a md is 2.7 times faster under SMP than UP. On a 14-CPU sparc64 machine it is 6.1 times faster (and it would be higher except the very low memory bandwidth and 400MHz CPU speed cause some of the kernel threads to saturate easily). But of course, Denial tells us that none of this means anything about FreeBSD performance and scalability, because it doesn't help him with the only thing he cares about, which is to sell systems that bridge high-speed networks. Kris, To me, this argument sounds suspiciously like I don't care that networking performance is slower because the shit in the OS that _I_ use is faster, so fuck all the rest of you who want faster network performance. You, meanwhile, are criticizing Danial for in effect saying I don't care that filesystem stuff is faster because the shit in the OS that _I_ use is slower, so fuck all the rest of you who are happy you have faster filesystem performance Kind of pot calling kettle black, here. If you are AGREEING with Danial that 5.4 and 6.0 networking performance is SLOWER then 4.X performance, why are you HAPPY and CONTENTED with this? Is it now OK to speed up one part of the system at the expense of slowing down another part? Sounds to me like the argument Microsoft makes that so what that Windows XP is slower than Windows 2K, it has lots of better eye-candy. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Freebsd Theme Song
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chris Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 6:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Freebsd Theme Song Danial Thom wrote: Kris is just a PR front man for a team of developers that is lost. Their theory on how to build a better mousetrap for MP is completely wrong, and now they're going to try something else, using the entire FreeBSD community as guinea pigs. First 5.4 was the answer. Then 6.0. Now it looks like 6.0 sucks too. Its a damn shame. DT IF you are such a man that can actually call himself an engineer - why hide behind Yahoo mail? Good point. Legally no entity can compel Danial to hide his real name when he's making posts on his own time. This business about his job requiring it is pure bullcrap. Get on the cisco-nsp mailing list, there's plenty of Cisco developers who post from time to time with real cisco.com e-mail addresses. The only thing an employer can demand is such posts if they refer to the employee position at a company that the poster attach a disclaimer stating that it's not an official corporate communication, etc. as well as the person cannot disclose trade secrets. (and no, under the law an employer cannot claim that an employee simply talking about FreeBSD is revealing a trade secret, the definition of that term is fairly strict) But an employer cannot demand an employee must not identify his employer. Only a government can do that to a government employee such as military or cia or some such. I choose to use the same name in cyberspace as IRL, for a number of reasons, the primary one being I know that when it comes to brass tacks, you can run but you cannot hide on the Internet. Any investigative agency with police powers can get Danial's real name if they really wanted to, and there's plenty of illegal ways to to it too. I regard people who hide behind aliases as rather inexperienced and immature people, who have little understanding of how the Internet really works, but the fact is that a lot of people do it, and it is not impossible to develop some credibility with an alias. Next, IF you are as you claim to be - WHY are you not on the team or at least contributing code? Chris, you cannot effect change by being part of the problem. If Danial truly thinks that the direction the core team is going with FreeBSD is wrong, then why would he be contributing to the problem by helping them? To insult one person for not seeing your point of view is a show of closed mindedness - to insult a whole list of users ... Well, I do think that speaks volumes about you - as a whole. Well here's from my POV for what that's worth: 1) Why the hell is this discussion even taking place under a thread titled FreeBSD Theme Song? 2) While the topic of this discussion is pertinent and interesting, I have seen no repeatable and even somewhat authoratative test results on all the systems in question. Simply saying I copied a 200MB file across FreeBSD in bridged mode is not enough. If Danial has seen problems he needs to post a website that details the issues down to a complete hardware workup and rundown on his network and test systems, and that includes results from the managed switches that he's using. 3) You by contrast and others have also not posted a scrap of hard data or results that contradicts Danial, testing that is repeatable and such. This entire thing would be easily solved by someone actually doing the work to verify test results, rather than a bunch of opinions. There's plenty of valid opinion-only topics out there, but this isn't one. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freebsd Theme Song
We are promoting a new punk rock band the is being developed as I write this email. We are looking for ways to get the bands name knowing to more. As far as I know Freebsd doesn't have a theme song? If intrested you could listen to some live recordings of the band at http://www.skudpuppetz.com/audio.php Chance ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
root wrote: We are promoting a new punk rock band the is being developed as I write this email. We are looking for ways to get the bands name knowing to more. As far as I know Freebsd doesn't have a theme song? If intrested you could listen to some live recordings of the band at http://www.skudpuppetz.com/audio.php Chance Great ... Now we'll have a set of songs like the ones OpenBSD has. Then, the list will become Theo-ized, users will then begin to be flamed and dissed for the sake of tweaking a few egos, the list will become non-useful, FreeBSD developers will cease to produce, the OS will falter, Gates will buy out FreeBSD and incorporate his dream of OpenWindows, The Ozone layer will widen, allowing the aliens to snatch away all the idiots and lame-assed users, causing the unemployment rate throughout the world to drop, hunger will cease, wars will stop, and mankind will move to the Star Trek society, and the nay-sayers will call it glorified communism, then the world will end the next day... There ... Are you happy now? Is this what you really want to do?! -- Best regards, Chris Never be first to do anything. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
I vote for Look what they've done to my song, Ma - a commentary on the destruction of the (formally) world's best operating system. --- Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root wrote: We are promoting a new punk rock band the is being developed as I write this email. We are looking for ways to get the bands name knowing to more. As far as I know Freebsd doesn't have a theme song? If intrested you could listen to some live recordings of the band at http://www.skudpuppetz.com/audio.php Chance Great ... Now we'll have a set of songs like the ones OpenBSD has. Then, the list will become Theo-ized, users will then begin to be flamed and dissed for the sake of tweaking a few egos, the list will become non-useful, FreeBSD developers will cease to produce, the OS will falter, Gates will buy out FreeBSD and incorporate his dream of OpenWindows, The Ozone layer will widen, allowing the aliens to snatch away all the idiots and lame-assed users, causing the unemployment rate throughout the world to drop, hunger will cease, wars will stop, and mankind will move to the Star Trek society, and the nay-sayers will call it glorified communism, then the world will end the next day... There ... Are you happy now? Is this what you really want to do?! -- Best regards, Chris Never be first to do anything. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
Danial Thom wrote: I vote for Look what they've done to my song, Ma - a commentary on the destruction of the (formally) world's best operating system. So far I'm finding 6.x a heck of a lot better than 5.x. The mousewheel just works, a lot more of the ports just work, sound works ... you still have to fiddle with /boot/loader.conf to get the sound to go, which is completely braindead, but I'm sure it'll be up to the standard of Linux distros 2001. I would suggest a song about Pokemon sex toys. - d. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:09:38 + David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Danial Thom wrote: I vote for Look what they've done to my song, Ma - a commentary on the destruction of the (formally) world's best operating system. I would go for an alteration of Ballad of a Thin Man. Maybe Mr. Jones could be Mr. Gates. Rob. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- http://home.comcast.net/~europa100 A SETI-like Search for Intelligent Life in Central Pa. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
I was referring to 4.x vs 5.x+ of course --- David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Danial Thom wrote: I vote for Look what they've done to my song, Ma - a commentary on the destruction of the (formally) world's best operating system. So far I'm finding 6.x a heck of a lot better than 5.x. The mousewheel just works, a lot more of the ports just work, sound works ... you still have to fiddle with /boot/loader.conf to get the sound to go, which is completely braindead, but I'm sure it'll be up to the standard of Linux distros 2001. I would suggest a song about Pokemon sex toys. - d. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
On Saturday, December 10, 2005 11:17:07 AM Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Freebsd Theme Song Wrote these words of wisdom: root wrote: We are promoting a new punk rock band the is being developed as I write this email. We are looking for ways to get the bands name knowing to more. As far as I know Freebsd doesn't have a theme song? If intrested you could listen to some live recordings of the band at http://www.skudpuppetz.com/audio.php Chance Great ... Now we'll have a set of songs like the ones OpenBSD has. Then, the list will become Theo-ized, users will then begin to be flamed and dissed for the sake of tweaking a few egos, the list will become non-useful, FreeBSD developers will cease to produce, the OS will falter, Gates will buy out FreeBSD and incorporate his dream of OpenWindows, The Ozone layer will widen, allowing the aliens to snatch away all the idiots and lame-assed users, causing the unemployment rate throughout the world to drop, hunger will cease, wars will stop, and mankind will move to the Star Trek society, and the nay-sayers will call it glorified communism, then the world will end the next day... There ... Are you happy now? Is this what you really want to do?! -- Best regards, Chris Never be first to do anything. * REPLY SEPARATOR * On 10/11/2005 5:29:42 PM, Gerard Replied: Just wonderful. Next, someone will want a FreeBSD flower. Actually though, your comment on Gates and OpenWindows is rather funny. -- When authorities warn you of the sinfulness of sex, there is an important lesson to be learned. Do not have sex with the authorities. Matt Groening ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
Danial Thom wrote: --- David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Danial Thom wrote: I vote for Look what they've done to my song, Ma - a commentary on the destruction of the (formally) world's best operating system. So far I'm finding 6.x a heck of a lot better than 5.x. The mousewheel just works, a lot more of the ports just work, sound works ... you still have to fiddle with /boot/loader.conf to get the sound to go, which is completely braindead, but I'm sure it'll be up to the standard of Linux distros 2001. I was referring to 4.x vs 5.x+ of course Ah, of course! I agree. But 6.x is sucking a lot less than 5.x for me. Haven't tried the linux-compat yet. I would suggest a song about Pokemon sex toys. I still think we need this. - d. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:00:42PM +, David Gerard wrote: Danial Thom wrote: --- David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Danial Thom wrote: I vote for Look what they've done to my song, Ma - a commentary on the destruction of the (formally) world's best operating system. So far I'm finding 6.x a heck of a lot better than 5.x. The mousewheel just works, a lot more of the ports just work, sound works ... you still have to fiddle with /boot/loader.conf to get the sound to go, which is completely braindead, but I'm sure it'll be up to the standard of Linux distros 2001. I was referring to 4.x vs 5.x+ of course Ah, of course! I agree. The thing you have to remember about Denial is that the ONLY THING he cares about in an OS is how fast it can route network packets. The major improvements in other areas of FreeBSD are of absolutely no interest to him, therefore the whole thing is a waste of time. But anyway, FreeBSD 6.0 is hugely superior to 5.4 and 4.11 in filesystem performance. I have been measuring this carefully for the past couple of months and hope to have the paper out soon. Kris pgpRaSC8jdiQE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
Kris Kennaway wrote: The thing you have to remember about Denial is that the ONLY THING he cares about in an OS is how fast it can route network packets. The major improvements in other areas of FreeBSD are of absolutely no interest to him, therefore the whole thing is a waste of time. Huh. But I found 5.x vastly annoying in all sorts of little ways when 4.x seemed to Just Work. I realise this is entirely subjective, but it was noticeable. But anyway, FreeBSD 6.0 is hugely superior to 5.4 and 4.11 in filesystem performance. I have been measuring this carefully for the past couple of months and hope to have the paper out soon. And wifi? Considering mine's the household server and I want to make it all wifi to get rid of the damn cat5 everywhere, I really should get to it ;-) - d. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 09:02:40PM +, David Gerard wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: The thing you have to remember about Denial is that the ONLY THING he cares about in an OS is how fast it can route network packets. The major improvements in other areas of FreeBSD are of absolutely no interest to him, therefore the whole thing is a waste of time. Huh. But I found 5.x vastly annoying in all sorts of little ways when 4.x seemed to Just Work. I realise this is entirely subjective, but it was noticeable. Fair enough. I notice that you don't troll about it, so that's fine :) But anyway, FreeBSD 6.0 is hugely superior to 5.4 and 4.11 in filesystem performance. I have been measuring this carefully for the past couple of months and hope to have the paper out soon. And wifi? Considering mine's the household server and I want to make it all wifi to get rid of the damn cat5 everywhere, I really should get to it ;-) I don't use this, but 6.0 is probably the way to go there too since there were architectural improvements that could not be merged back to 5.x. Kris pgpZe1TBpNsCc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
--- Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:00:42PM +, David Gerard wrote: Danial Thom wrote: --- David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Danial Thom wrote: I vote for Look what they've done to my song, Ma - a commentary on the destruction of the (formally) world's best operating system. So far I'm finding 6.x a heck of a lot better than 5.x. The mousewheel just works, a lot more of the ports just work, sound works ... you still have to fiddle with /boot/loader.conf to get the sound to go, which is completely braindead, but I'm sure it'll be up to the standard of Linux distros 2001. I was referring to 4.x vs 5.x+ of course Ah, of course! I agree. The thing you have to remember about Denial is that the ONLY THING he cares about in an OS is how fast it can route network packets. The major improvements in other areas of FreeBSD are of absolutely no interest to him, therefore the whole thing is a waste of time. But anyway, FreeBSD 6.0 is hugely superior to 5.4 and 4.11 in filesystem performance. I have been measuring this carefully for the past couple of months and hope to have the paper out soon. Kris Well thats just hogwash Kris. Pure bridging performance is a measure of the efficiency of the kernel to do rote tasks like respond to interrupts, and the latencies in performing those tasks. Its the best way, IMO, to exercise and measure the efficiency of an isolated kernel. It requires no userland activity, so your results aren't muddled by millions of system calls. Its a way to compare apples to apples, which is how good testing is done. As long as you don't have your filesystem on a network, you're in good shape. But thats not even the point. The point is that the purpose of tearing apart 4.x was to go MP, and MP performance is dismill across the board. I would expect some things to be a lot better with the 3 years of work, but the goal of having an efficient MP O/S is as far away as it was with 5.1. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 01:14:18PM -0800, Danial Thom wrote: Well thats just hogwash Kris. Pure bridging performance is a measure of the efficiency of the kernel to do rote tasks like respond to interrupts, and the latencies in performing those tasks. Its the best way, IMO, to exercise and measure the efficiency of an isolated kernel. It requires no userland activity, so your results aren't muddled by millions of system calls. Its a way to compare apples to apples, which is how good testing is done. As long as you don't have your filesystem on a network, you're in good shape. But thats not even the point. The point is that the purpose of tearing apart 4.x was to go MP, and MP performance is dismill across the board. This statement is simply false. It's actually quite funny to read. For the readers at home: Denial is once again taking his narrow view of the world (everything about the OS is accurately measured by how fast the kernel routes network packets!) and extrapolating it to infinity, then jumping up and down about it. Kris pgpDOmNEmEJGG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
On Dec 10, 2005, at 2:16 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote: But anyway, FreeBSD 6.0 is hugely superior to 5.4 and 4.11 in filesystem performance. I have been measuring this carefully for the past couple of months and hope to have the paper out soon. For instance in 5.4 the fastest I could write to my /usr/ partition on a simple default-partitioned UDMA100 drive was 16 MB/sec with a 2.8 GHz P4 while it was capable of reading at over 40 MB/sec. Saw RELENG_6 writing on that partition at over 40 MB/sec recently. Unscientific tests using systat -v and moving big files. A gvinum striped volume on two SATA150 drives routinely produces 70 MB/sec reads and writes. Its nice that FreeBSD is now close to the hardware's performance. One nit is that with such a large sustained access other small accesses are starved. Probably a scheduler issue, and I'm sure the scheduler is being worked on. -- David Kelly N4HHE, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 05:34:23PM -0600, David Kelly wrote: But anyway, FreeBSD 6.0 is hugely superior to 5.4 and 4.11 in filesystem performance. I have been measuring this carefully for the past couple of months and hope to have the paper out soon. For instance in 5.4 the fastest I could write to my /usr/ partition on a simple default-partitioned UDMA100 drive was 16 MB/sec with a 2.8 GHz P4 while it was capable of reading at over 40 MB/sec. Saw RELENG_6 writing on that partition at over 40 MB/sec recently. Unscientific tests using systat -v and moving big files. A gvinum striped volume on two SATA150 drives routinely produces 70 MB/sec reads and writes. On this amr array with 4 disks, write performance is up to 150 MB/sec on the device with multiple processes writing to the filesystem. This makes it a good testbed because there's a lot of room to observe scaling under varying loads. Its nice that FreeBSD is now close to the hardware's performance. One nit is that with such a large sustained access other small accesses are starved. Probably a scheduler issue, and I'm sure the scheduler is being worked on. Yes, I've noticed that too. It also occurs in 4.11 and 5.4, but is about 50% less severe on 4.11. The ULE scheduler is much better in this respect, but processes run about 5-20% slower under most loads. Kris pgpNWTUBH1HIJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 05:09:38PM +, David Gerard wrote: Danial Thom wrote: I vote for Look what they've done to my song, Ma - a commentary on the destruction of the (formally) world's best operating system. So far I'm finding 6.x a heck of a lot better than 5.x. The mousewheel just works, a lot more of the ports just work, sound works ... you still have to fiddle with /boot/loader.conf to get the sound to go, which is completely braindead, but I'm sure it'll be up to the standard of Linux distros 2001. Ahemm, speaking of sound... how about a, *cough*, working MIDI sequencer? Any way to attach a MIDI device to 5.x or 6.x _and_ being able to record from it? Anything workable yet? No? Am I missing something crucial here? I would suggest a song about Pokemon sex toys. :) - d. Thanks, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
Hope this saves somebody a few keystrokes: * VI * #!/bin/sh # themesong ... enables you to quickly create a singable # ode to your favorite FreeBSD pet peeve. Add it, along with # mail(1) to your crontab to really annoy list members. # # License: BSD, of course. Additions welcome, provided # the meet with the goals of the Project. if [ $OSTYPE != FreeBSD ]; then echo Wrong O.S. --- Gritch on your own project/distro's list! exit 1 fi case $1 in -c) cat /COPYRIGHT exit 0;; -C) cat /COPYRIGHT exit 0;; # let the GNU people gritch too; but they won't like this part --copyright) cat /COPYRIGHT exit 0;; esac if [ $1 ]; then echo THE BIKESHED SONG sung to 'You are my Sunshine' and humbly submitted as a candidate in the soon-to-be-announced FreeBSD Theme Song Contest (but definitely not in any code competitions...) '$1' is my bikeshed, my only bikeshed '$1' makes me happy to gritch and moan; You'll never know, friend, how much I loathe '$1' Won't you please leave my '$1' alone!? else echo Usage: themesong foo ---where 'foo' is a description of your pet peeve with this O.S., e.g. 'themesong networking' fi * DE * :D Kevin Kinsey -- THE DAILY PLANET SUPERMAN SAVES DESSERT! Plans to Eat it later ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd Theme Song
Kevin Kinsey sat at his 'puter and typed on 12/11/2005 11:04: Hope this saves somebody a few keystrokes: * VI * #!/bin/sh # themesong ... enables you to quickly create a singable # ode to your favorite FreeBSD pet peeve. Add it, along with # mail(1) to your crontab to really annoy list members. # # License: BSD, of course. Additions welcome, provided # the meet with the goals of the Project. if [ $OSTYPE != FreeBSD ]; then echo Wrong O.S. --- Gritch on your own project/distro's list! exit 1 fi case $1 in -c) cat /COPYRIGHT exit 0;; -C) cat /COPYRIGHT exit 0;; # let the GNU people gritch too; but they won't like this part --copyright) cat /COPYRIGHT exit 0;; esac if [ $1 ]; then echo THE BIKESHED SONG sung to 'You are my Sunshine' and humbly submitted as a candidate in the soon-to-be-announced FreeBSD Theme Song Contest (but definitely not in any code competitions...) '$1' is my bikeshed, my only bikeshed '$1' makes me happy to gritch and moan; You'll never know, friend, how much I loathe '$1' Won't you please leave my '$1' alone!? else echo Usage: themesong foo ---where 'foo' is a description of your pet peeve with this O.S., e.g. 'themesong networking' fi * DE * :D Kevin Kinsey ROFLMAO This is definitely the best of all. Well done Kevin. Simply marvelous Thanks S. -- --- \ / | Subhro Sankha Kar \./ | GSM: +919831010002 -- Fax: +919831832913 (0Y0) |MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Yahoo!: subhro82 -ooO--(_)--Ooo- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
theme ports
Hello Im having some troulbe loading a theme from a port i have installed. I installed the baghira theme from the x11-theme ports and everything went smooth. But I dont see it from control centre. I did the make search key=kde | grep Path and it is there for kde (which is what im using). I didnt find any information on this. Do I need to load the theme form the theme manager in control centre? Im not sure where it put the theme... whereis doesnt help me here... Thanks Eoghan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using a differnet icon theme with nautilus, without having gnome installed
hello, I'm running freebsd 5.4 with fluxbox and with nautilus file manager. Installing themes and icons with gnome is really easy, but how do you install themes and icons for nautilus without having the entire gnome wm installed? For example the dropline nuovo: http://art.gnome.org/download/themes/icon/1112/ICON-DroplineNuovo.tar.bz 2 (files are extracted to the following directories ./themes and ./icons (actually .icons is symlink to .themes) And now? How do I enable these icons to be used as default in nautilus? I've been googling around, and I found that nautilus uses the [gtk]theme. That doesn't mean a lot to me (as a windowmanager novice). What are my next steps to get it work? (If possible I really don't want to install the entire gnome manager!!!) I would really appreciate any help or comments greetings didier ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hicolor-icon-theme
Hi all, Conpletley new to BSD and trying to build a box and install firefox but I keep getting a stop - hicolor-icon-theme Anyone able to offer any help Stephen ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hicolor-icon-theme
Stephen Harrison wrote: Hi all, Conpletley new to BSD and trying to build a box and install firefox but I keep getting a stop - hicolor-icon-theme Anyone able to offer any help Stephen ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I had this error until I cvsup'd everything. Then the builds went fine. Sean ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: checksum mismatch on hicolor-icon-theme-0.5
I had downloaded the latest version (hicolor-icon-themes-0.5.tar.gz), and it was even the exact same size as the file that Ports was requesting, so I didn't think that redownloading it would do any good. Well, out of desperation, I did (delete the current file and download a new one), and that fixed everything. I don't know why or how, but it did. Thanks for your help! Chandler On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 14:28:19 -0800, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 12:20:26PM -0800, Chandler May wrote: Hi, I've been unable to compile a very large number of programs because of a checksum mismatch on hicolor-icon-theme-0.5.tar.gz. If you already have a local copy of this file, you may need to remove it and re-fetch an updated copy. Use 'make distclean' from the port directory to remove all distfiles for the port so you can re-fetch them. Ports refuses to connect to any FTP or HTTP servers for the download, Verify that your ports collection is complete and up-to-date. This kind of problem is usually fixed very quickly. and will not recognize the file when I download it manually and put it in distfiles. Are you sure you're putting it in the right directory? Compare carefully to the error message. Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
checksum mismatch on hicolor-icon-theme-0.5
Hi, I've been unable to compile a very large number of programs because of a checksum mismatch on hicolor-icon-theme-0.5.tar.gz. Ports refuses to connect to any FTP or HTTP servers for the download, and will not recognize the file when I download it manually and put it in distfiles. Besides this specific port (not sure about what to call it, but port sounds right), Ports works fine. I've cvsup'd everything already to FreeBSD 5.3-CURRENT, but my initial install was 5.3-RELEASE (if that makes a difference). Is this a known bug, or could it just be a problem with my system? Chandler ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: checksum mismatch on hicolor-icon-theme-0.5
On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 12:20:26PM -0800, Chandler May wrote: Hi, I've been unable to compile a very large number of programs because of a checksum mismatch on hicolor-icon-theme-0.5.tar.gz. If you already have a local copy of this file, you may need to remove it and re-fetch an updated copy. Use 'make distclean' from the port directory to remove all distfiles for the port so you can re-fetch them. Ports refuses to connect to any FTP or HTTP servers for the download, Verify that your ports collection is complete and up-to-date. This kind of problem is usually fixed very quickly. and will not recognize the file when I download it manually and put it in distfiles. Are you sure you're putting it in the right directory? Compare carefully to the error message. Kris pgpUqCyQ43WMt.pgp Description: PGP signature
where is KDE 3.2.3 theme manager?
Where can I find the KDE theme manager (3.2.3)? Googling reveals that there will be a new one for 3.3, but what about 3.2.3? I can't find it in Control Center, and I can't find anything in ports. Although it's long ago (probably KDE 2) I'm pretty sure that I once had a KDE theme manager. Karel. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
