On 08.11.2010 09:13, DJ wrote:
>
> After scratching my head for a few weeks, I've decided to ask for some help.
>
> First, I've got two machines connected by gigabit ethernet, network
> performance is not a problem as I am able to substantially saturate the wire
> when not using iscsi [say iper
After scratching my head for a few weeks, I've decided to ask for some help.
First, I've got two machines connected by gigabit ethernet, network performance
is not a problem as I am able to substantially saturate the wire when not using
iscsi [say iperf] or ftp. Both systems are 8.1-RELENG. The
On 01/19/10 10:09, krad wrote:
2010/1/18 Morgan Wesstr�m
O. Hartmann wrote:
I realise a strange behaviour of several FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE/amd64 boxes.
All boxes have the most recent STABLE. One box is a UP system, two
others SMP boxes, one with a Q6600 4-core, another XEON with 2x 4-cores
(Dell
On 01/18/10 21:34, � wrote:
O. Hartmann wrote:
I realise a strange behaviour of several FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE/amd64 boxes.
All boxes have the most recent STABLE. One box is a UP system, two
others SMP boxes, one with a Q6600 4-core, another XEON with 2x 4-cores
(Dell Poweredge III).
Symptome: All
Emil Mikulic wrote:
> (off-list)
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 04:32:34PM +0100, Morgan Wesstr?m wrote:
>> Emil Mikulic wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 09:16:41AM +0100, Gerrit K?hn wrote:
Thanks for bringing up this topic here. I have drives showing up close to
80 load cycle counts
2010/1/18 Morgan Wesström
> O. Hartmann wrote:
> > I realise a strange behaviour of several FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE/amd64 boxes.
> > All boxes have the most recent STABLE. One box is a UP system, two
> > others SMP boxes, one with a Q6600 4-core, another XEON with 2x 4-cores
> > (Dell Poweredge III).
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Morgan Wesström wrote:
> The disks involved don't happen to be Western Digital Green Power
> disks, do they? The Intelli-Park function in these disks are wrecking
> havoc with I/O in Linux-land at least, causing massive stalls and
> iowait through the roof during the 25-30 seco
O. Hartmann wrote:
> I realise a strange behaviour of several FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE/amd64 boxes.
> All boxes have the most recent STABLE. One box is a UP system, two
> others SMP boxes, one with a Q6600 4-core, another XEON with 2x 4-cores
> (Dell Poweredge III).
>
> Symptome: All boxes have ZFS and
I realise a strange behaviour of several FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE/amd64 boxes.
All boxes have the most recent STABLE. One box is a UP system, two
others SMP boxes, one with a Q6600 4-core, another XEON with 2x 4-cores
(Dell Poweredge III).
Symptome: All boxes have ZFS and UFS2 filesystems. Since two
Hello,
I'm seeing exactly the same issues on my 5 disk raidz pool again.
In brief:
I can only write to the filesystem at ~20MB/s, and read from it at
~25MB/s. Normally, I'd expect to be able to write at nearer 50-100
MB/s, and read at ~200MB/s.
The values from "zpool iostat -v" are also strange
Christopher Key wrote:
> I'm running FreeBSD 7.2 amd64 on a system with 2GB RAM. I've a zfs pool
> using raidz1 over five 2Tb SATA drives connected via a port multiplier
> and a RR2314 card.
>
> I can write to a filesystem on this pool at approx 20MB/s:
>
> # dd if=/dev/urandom of=$FS/testdump bs=
Carl Chave wrote:
> relatively idle. You can request a more accurate view of current
> bandwidth usage by specifying
> an interval.
Thanks Carl,
I was aware of the option, the posted stats were from:
# zpool iostat -v 10
with the 10s period wholly within the ~40s transfer time.
King regards,
Chris,
Don't know, but, I will paste in a portion of the ZFS admin guide from SUN:
Because these statistics are cumulative since boot, bandwidth might
appear low if the pool is
relatively idle. You can request a more accurate view of current
bandwidth usage by specifying
an interval. For example:
Hello,
I'm running FreeBSD 7.2 amd64 on a system with 2GB RAM. I've a zfs pool
using raidz1 over five 2Tb SATA drives connected via a port multiplier
and a RR2314 card.
I can write to a filesystem on this pool at approx 20MB/s:
# dd if=/dev/urandom of=$FS/testdump bs=1m count=1k
1024+0 records
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Natham
> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 10:04 AM
> To: Mel
> Cc: Lyle Miller; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Performance Issues on 6.3
>
> I made the test toda
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Mel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 27 February 2008 18:56:15 Natham wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Lyle Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Natham wrote:
> > > > Hi i have a server with four disk atached, 2 raid 0 and 2 raid 1. Im
On Wednesday 27 February 2008 18:56:15 Natham wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Lyle Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Natham wrote:
> > > Hi i have a server with four disk atached, 2 raid 0 and 2 raid 1. Im
> > > getting a low performance on file trasfers over network to windows
>
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Lyle Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Natham wrote:
> > Hi i have a server with four disk atached, 2 raid 0 and 2 raid 1. Im
> > getting a low performance on file trasfers over network to windows
> > clients i get only about 30MB/s. Looking at gstat i got b
Natham wrote:
Hi i have a server with four disk atached, 2 raid 0 and 2 raid 1. Im
getting a low performance on file trasfers over network to windows
clients i get only about 30MB/s. Looking at gstat i got both disk are
trasfering 15000kBps each over a gigabit connection(client and
server). How
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Natham
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 1:32 PM
> To: Kris Kennaway; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Performance Issues on 6.3
>
>
> O
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Natham wrote:
| I dont. i check the performance for network trasfer only thats what i
| mean (trought samba). When im rebuilding the RAID 1 i got about 40mb/s
| from each disk.
| I think its a network issue or samba, but i dont know where to look at.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Natham wrote:
>
> > Both RAID got low performance, where can i check to fis that problem?
>
> How did you determine that it is your RAID that is performing poorly,
> and not your network card or your samba or something o
Natham wrote:
Both RAID got low performance, where can i check to fis that problem?
How did you determine that it is your RAID that is performing poorly,
and not your network card or your samba or something on the other system?
Kris
___
freebsd-qu
Hi i have a server with four disk atached, 2 raid 0 and 2 raid 1. Im
getting a low performance on file trasfers over network to windows
clients i get only about 30MB/s. Looking at gstat i got both disk are
trasfering 15000kBps each over a gigabit connection(client and
server). How can improve per
In response to "Pat Maddox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm having some bad perf issues on a 6.2 server running PostgreSQL
> 8.2.4. I really don't know too much about this stuff...but it doesn't
> seem to be related to memory or CPU as they're barely being touched.
> Which leaves IO. Here's some vmstat
Pat
I'd start by looking at tuning Postgresqllook at the queries that are
taking the longest and optimise those.
there's stuff alover the web about tuning PGsql
On 7/25/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm having some bad perf issues on a 6.2 server running PostgreSQL
8.2.4. I re
I'm having some bad perf issues on a 6.2 server running PostgreSQL
8.2.4. I really don't know too much about this stuff...but it doesn't
seem to be related to memory or CPU as they're barely being touched.
Which leaves IO. Here's some vmstat output. My only guess is that the
numbers under the faul
At 08:03 AM 2/6/2007, Chris wrote:
On 06/02/07, Justin Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've actually already done everything you've suggested with little or no
impact at all. One point where we have different results is with
ADAPTIVE_GIANT, I actually noticed a drop of about 50kpps thruput
On 06/02/07, Justin Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've actually already done everything you've suggested with little or no
impact at all. One point where we have different results is with
ADAPTIVE_GIANT, I actually noticed a drop of about 50kpps thruput when
disabling it.
Hmm I am surp
At 09:53 PM 2/5/2007, Justin Robertson wrote:
I've actually already done everything you've suggested with little
or no impact at all.
Are you sure you had kern.polling.idle_poll=1 enabled ? It makes a
big difference in RELENG_6 with it on or off in my tests.
---Mike
___
I've actually already done everything you've suggested with little or no
impact at all. One point where we have different results is with
ADAPTIVE_GIANT, I actually noticed a drop of about 50kpps thruput when
disabling it.
Mike Tancsa wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:03:41 -0800, in sentex.li
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:03:41 -0800, in sentex.lists.freebsd.questions
you wrote:
>
> I suppose my concerns are two-fold. Why is 6.x collapsing under traffic
>that 4.11 could easily block and run merrily along with, and is there a
>queueing mechanism in place that doesn't tie up the box so much o
So, this may be the wrong list to post to, but it seemed the most
appropriate. If someone could suggest a better location to move/cross
post to let me know.
I've been running some tests with using FreeBSD to filter and rate
limit traffic. My first thoughts were to goto the latest stable re
Some time ago I posted about having 2d performance issues with Xorg,
nvidia driver, and linux-opera. I haven't had much time lately to
figure out what is going on but I finally found a solution/workaround
yesterday.
The fix was to take device agp out of the kernel and use
Option "
On Sep 13, 2005, at 11:23 AM, Danial Thom wrote:
its not clear why Chuck keeps answering since he
clearly doesn't understand the question.
I'm willing to try and help people, even if the questions being asked
aren't entirely clear. If you want to believe this reflects a lack
of understandi
--- Charles Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Sten Daniel
> Sørsdal wrote:
> >> The essence of multihoming is having two (or
> more) distinct NICs.
> >
> > so if i had two vlan's with an ip on both.
> wouldnt this qualify it as
> > multihoming? would i somehow no
Ariff Abdullah wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:38:41 -0500
Mark Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ariff Abdullah wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:38:00 -0500
Mark Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark Kane wrote:
I do notice that when doing some things like using unrar to extract
a file or loadin
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:38:41 -0500
Mark Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ariff Abdullah wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:38:00 -0500
> > Mark Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Mark Kane wrote:
> >>I do notice that when doing some things like using unrar to extract
> >>a file or loading a
Ariff Abdullah wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:38:00 -0500
Mark Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark Kane wrote:
I do notice that when doing some things like using unrar to extract
a file or loading a video into video encoding software I do get
some of the same little crackles and static in the
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:38:00 -0500
Mark Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Kane wrote:
> > Ariff Abdullah wrote:
> >
> >> These are my suggestions:
> >> 1) enable 'options PREEMPTION'. This is a MUST.
> >> 2) use SCHED_ULE instead of SCHED_4BSD. ULE is pretty stable on
> >me, >but I can't
Mark Kane wrote:
Ariff Abdullah wrote:
These are my suggestions:
1) enable 'options PREEMPTION'. This is a MUST.
2) use SCHED_ULE instead of SCHED_4BSD. ULE is pretty stable on me,
but I can't guarantee (especially combining with PREEMPTION).
It doesn't hurt to give it a try.
3) Apply the
Ariff Abdullah wrote:
These are my suggestions:
1) enable 'options PREEMPTION'. This is a MUST.
2) use SCHED_ULE instead of SCHED_4BSD. ULE is pretty stable on me,
but I can't guarantee (especially combining with PREEMPTION).
It doesn't hurt to give it a try.
3) Apply these patches:
http:/
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:17:05 -0500
Mark Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ariff Abdullah wrote:
> > I've been following this thread, yet I still don't know what is
> > your soundcard. To tell you the truth, much of these issues relies
> > heavily on your spesific sound driver, whether it has been f
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 01:14:35PM -0500, Mark Kane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:48:17PM -0500, Mark Kane wrote:
> >
> >>Roland Smith wrote:
> >>
> >>>Another thing to look at might be the scheduler. I'm using SCHED_4BSD.
> >>
> >>Hmm, I'm using just a GENERIC kernel
Ariff Abdullah wrote:
I've been following this thread, yet I still don't know what is your
soundcard. To tell you the truth, much of these issues relies heavily
on your spesific sound driver, whether it has been freed from Giant or
not. At least:
Well the thing that makes me think it's not enti
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:14:35 -0500
Mark Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:48:17PM -0500, Mark Kane wrote:
> >
> >>Roland Smith wrote:
> >>
> >>>Another thing to look at might be the scheduler. I'm using
> >SCHED_4BSD. >
> >>Hmm, I'm using just a
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 06:36:04PM -0500, Mark Kane wrote:
> This much improvement almost makes me want to just upgrade this amd64
> box to -STABLE and start using it now. I just want to be sure it's
> stable enough for my use.
My amd64 workstation has been running -STABLE since 5.3 without prob
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:48:17PM -0500, Mark Kane wrote:
Roland Smith wrote:
Another thing to look at might be the scheduler. I'm using SCHED_4BSD.
Hmm, I'm using just a GENERIC kernel with support added in for my sound
driver and atapicam for K3b. SCHED_4BSD looks d
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:48:17PM -0500, Mark Kane wrote:
> Roland Smith wrote:
> >Another thing to look at might be the scheduler. I'm using SCHED_4BSD.
>
> Hmm, I'm using just a GENERIC kernel with support added in for my sound
> driver and atapicam for K3b. SCHED_4BSD looks default in GENERIC
Chris wrote:
Try these in kernel
OPTIONS DIRECTIO
OPTIONS NO_ADAPTIVE_MUTEXES
and commenting optionsADAPTIVE_GIANT
and disable apic.
Tell me if that imporves or makes worse.
Well I did the kernel part, but wasn't sure how you wanted me to disable
APIC. I looked in the BIOS but don't
On 26/08/05, Mark Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roland Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 04:44:59PM -0500, Mark Kane wrote:
> >>Okay, I may try that later then. STABLE is just about done on that
> >>Athlon XP 2000+ machine.
> >
> >
> > Fingers crossed :-)
>
> Well Hmmm I've got -STA
Roland Smith wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 04:44:59PM -0500, Mark Kane wrote:
Okay, I may try that later then. STABLE is just about done on that
Athlon XP 2000+ machine.
Fingers crossed :-)
Well Hmmm I've got -STABLE running on the 5.4-RELEASE i386 AMD
Athlon XP 2000+ machine with 256
Roland Smith wrote:
Have you checked (with 'atacontrol mode ') that both drives are
indeed using DMA?
amd64# atacontrol mode 0
Master = UDMA133 [200GB w/ FreeBSD]
Slave = BIOSPIO
amd64# atacontrol mode 1
Master = BIOSPIO
Slave = PIO4 [Sony DRU500A DVD+RW]
amd64# atacontrol mode 4
Master = UDM
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 03:25:48PM -0500, Mark Kane wrote:
> >Hmm, if bzip2 can't saturate the CPU, I would say it's probably waiting
> >for disk reads/writes.
>
> The drives I was trying to compress from/to are both brand new 200GB
> Maxtor 7200RPM ATA133 drives. Maybe that has something to do w
Laurence Sanford wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Mark Kane wrote:
Hmm, if bzip2 can't saturate the CPU, I would say it's probably waiting
for disk reads/writes.
The drives I was trying to compress from/to are both brand new 200GB
Maxtor 7200RPM ATA133 drives. Maybe that has something to do wi
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Mark Kane wrote:
Hmm, if bzip2 can't saturate the CPU, I would say it's probably waiting
for disk reads/writes.
The drives I was trying to compress from/to are both brand new 200GB Maxtor
7200RPM ATA133 drives. Maybe that has something to do with the bad controller
on
Roland Smith wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 01:39:25PM -0500, Mark Kane wrote:
Wow, that would be really nice. I notice whenever I compress something
like a backup of my Thunderbird Inbox files (several hundred megs) in
bzip2 format it goes nowhere near 100% or even 90% CPU usage. The
proble
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 01:39:25PM -0500, Mark Kane wrote:
> Wow, that would be really nice. I notice whenever I compress something
> like a backup of my Thunderbird Inbox files (several hundred megs) in
> bzip2 format it goes nowhere near 100% or even 90% CPU usage. The
> problems I am talking
Roland Smith wrote:
So you have no similar problems in -STABLE? How about when untarring a
bigger file and playing audio? If not, then maybe trying STABLE on that
other drive might be a good idea.
Yesterday I was making a level 0 dump of my /usr partition (32429 MB) to
another drive, which wa
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:48:17PM -0500, Mark Kane wrote:
> Roland Smith wrote:
> >Another thing to look at might be the scheduler. I'm using SCHED_4BSD.
>
> Hmm, I'm using just a GENERIC kernel with support added in for my sound
> driver and atapicam for K3b. SCHED_4BSD looks default in GENERIC
Roland Smith wrote:
Another thing to look at might be the scheduler. I'm using SCHED_4BSD.
Hmm, I'm using just a GENERIC kernel with support added in for my sound
driver and atapicam for K3b. SCHED_4BSD looks default in GENERIC:
options SCHED_4BSD # 4BSD scheduler
I've
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:21:41AM -0500, Mark Kane wrote:
> >/boot/device.hints:
> >
> ># Larger DMA buffer for the soundcard, for better sound quality.
> >hint.pcm.0.buffersize="16384"
>
> Hey Roland. Yeah, back when I was looking into amd64 vs i386 version and
> had a thread going that you rep
Roland Smith wrote:
My amd64 machine does not have this problem. I'm running 5.4-STABLE:
FreeBSD slackbox.xs4all.nl 5.4-STABLE FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE #0: Wed Aug 10
20:25:45 CEST 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/RFS amd64
One thing I did do was enlarge the soundcard's DMA buffer in
/boot
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 10:16:51PM -0500, Mark Kane wrote:
>
> The issue I'm having is that every minute or two, I will hear some
> stuttering in any audio/video playback (will see the video freeze if
> video), and my mouse will freeze for a few seconds as well while this
> happens. It seems to
Daniel Marsh wrote:
To get the CD device in dma try setting hw.ata.atapi_dma to 1 with
sysctl (may need to go into loader)
Only reason I didn't put the DVD burner in DMA is because a K3b howto
guide recommended PIO mode. I no longer use K3b (but growisofs) so I
guess I could try it but I'm n
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 10:16:51PM -0500, Mark Kane wrote:
> Hi everyone. Last night I finally worked out some issues with my AMD64
> machine and got it up and operational. It's an AMD64 3000+ with 1.5GB
> RAM, and five 7200RPM hard drives (total of 720 gigs) running FreeBSD
> 5.4-RELEASE (amd64
Daniel Marsh wrote:
Could you post your dmesg to the list?
I have had a similar problem with SATA hard drives on an Intel PNSLK
945 chipset motherboard with a Pentium D 3ghz. The SATA drives simply
would not recognize as DMA, only PIO, in the BIOS there was a setting
for ATA/IDE Mode, the
TRODAT wrote:
Mark,
I to am having similar problems with SATA drives, to the point where the
audio coming from XMMS sounds just TRIPPING!
Well while all my drives are PATA, I should mention that I'm not even
trying to play mp3s/Ogg files from any of my five drives most of the
time. I run a
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Mark Kane wrote:
Hi everyone. Last night I finally worked out some issues with my AMD64
machine and got it up and operational. It's an AMD64 3000+ with 1.5GB RAM,
and five 7200RPM hard drives (total of 720 gigs) running FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE
(amd64). When doing testing and
Hi everyone. Last night I finally worked out some issues with my AMD64
machine and got it up and operational. It's an AMD64 3000+ with 1.5GB
RAM, and five 7200RPM hard drives (total of 720 gigs) running FreeBSD
5.4-RELEASE (amd64). When doing testing and initial
install/configuration of this ma
I have had various performance issues on FreeBSD since I installed 5.2.1
a few months back. Basically, it seems that it's easy to load the
system down enough to interrupt xmms playing music which is very bad for
me. I'm wondering if 5.2.1 has had lower performance levels than the
4.x l
Guys,
I recently had a little run-in with lightning during a recent thunderstorm -
which destroyed my FreeBSD based router (along with a good chunk of my home
automation system...)
The machine had a VIA EPIA mainboard with a 933MHz processor. I had two 3Com
3C905C-TX boards installed for the r
> Xine seems to have trouble playing movies at the beginning, it's
> choppy for the first several seconds, then resumes the movie normally
> after it's in a little ways. Even stopping and restarting, it still
> exhibits the same behavior at the beginning of a movie file. Also,
> watching dvd's o
I have been using freebsd for a couple of months now, and have
enjoyed it thus far, but there are a couple of performance
issues I've been having with it. Previously I was running linux
on this same hardware, so all this issues are freebsd specific.
Xine seems to have trouble playing movi
Forrest Aldrich wrote:
[ ... ]
In a mail gateway configuration, several people have suggested that
using a tmpfs (or mfs, depending upon your flavor of Unix) would provide
a performance increase (i/o). Though someone argued (on a list
posting) that the buffering on normal disk operation would
I did some reading through other posts, and wanted to get some more input
about this.
In a mail gateway configuration, several people have suggested that using a
tmpfs (or mfs, depending upon your flavor of Unix) would provide a
performance increase (i/o). Though someone argued (on a list pos
On Thursday 26 September 2002 08:02 am, Vallo Kallaste wrote:
>
> All that said, even old (16bit)NE2000 clone will easily sustain
> 800+kB/s on my old 133Mhz Pentium with CPU load 20% or so. 400kB/s
> versus 100kB/s throughput difference in this particular case isn't
> matter of 3Com vs. Via NIC,
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 05:08:03PM -0500, David Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing to try is to invert the functions of vr0 and xl0.
>
> Another Good Thing To Try is to read man pages and source code on the
> devices you are using. This is found in /usr/src/sys/pci/if_vr.c:
>
> *
>
dy Swanson'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 4:55 PM
Subject: RE: Performance issues with natd
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Kenneth Culver wrote:
>
> > > I agree with the hardware diagnosis. I have almost the same setup
On Wednesday 25 September 2002 05:21 pm, Kenneth Culver wrote:
[...]
>
> All that said, it wouldn't hurt to try to use ipfilter or something
> like that... that would avoid any extra money being spent if it
> solves the problem (I doubt that it will but it might).
It would be very easy to swap in
> > I just setup a 4.6.2 machine locally on my network at home to replace an
> > aging Linux NAT box I had going. Clients behind the new box can only get
> > 100k/sec downloads while clients behind the old Linux box (running ipchains)
> > get 400k/sec+ downloads off the same cable modem. Locally o
> Yeh, but is he downloading from the same place with every test?
> To be honest, you should be testing the performace across a
> reliable link that doesn't change. This way you can tell if it is
> related to the machine versus it being an upstream network
> problem/
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 03:02:47PM -0300, Cody Swanson wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I just setup a 4.6.2 machine locally on my network at home to replace an
> aging Linux NAT box I had going. Clients behind the new box can only get
> 100k/sec downloads while clients behind the old Linux box (running i
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Kenneth Culver wrote:
> > I agree with the hardware diagnosis. I have almost the same setup on a
> > nat box that I run, and everything works perfectly. I get good transfer
> > speeds, and I use two 3c905b cards from 3com. I would say check and
> > re-check your hardware. Goo
> I agree with the hardware diagnosis. I have almost the same setup on a
> nat box that I run, and everything works perfectly. I get good transfer
> speeds, and I use two 3c905b cards from 3com. I would say check and
> re-check your hardware. Good luck.
I don't think I agree, he's getting 400 KB/
> I just setup a 4.6.2 machine locally on my network at home to replace an
> aging Linux NAT box I had going. Clients behind the new box can only get
> 100k/sec downloads while clients behind the old Linux box (running
> ipchains) get 400k/sec+ downloads off the same cable modem. Locally on
> the
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 2:11 PM
To: Cody Swanson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Performance issues with natd
it is not necessarily a NATD issue. your setup looks
fine. the cards, however, are not exactly new
it is not necessarily a NATD issue. your setup looks
fine. the cards, however, are not exactly new. might
wanna check your hardware. if not your hardware, then
maybe someone here can give you a way to improve the
transfer rate but i really think it has most to do with
your hardware.
> Hell
Hello all,
I just setup a 4.6.2 machine locally on my network at home to replace an
aging Linux NAT box I had going. Clients behind the new box can only get
100k/sec downloads while clients behind the old Linux box (running ipchains)
get 400k/sec+ downloads off the same cable modem. Locally on th
89 matches
Mail list logo
