Re: fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-07 Thread Joe Koberg
Pete French wrote: 1 megabit = 106 = 1,000,000 bits which is equal to 125,000 bytes. you are assuming eight bits per byte - but this is a serial line so you should use ten bits per byte instead. -pete. That was a rule of thumb in the heyday of async serial lines, which used a start

Re: fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-07 Thread sthaug
However, ethernet at 100Mbit is 4B5B coded at a 125mhz rate. So the raw synchronous data rate really is 12.5Mbytes/s. Minus the sync preamble of 8 bytes per packet and the mandatory inter-frame-gap of 12 bytes that's a physical layer rate of (12.5M * (1500/(1500+20))) or 12.34Mbyte/s. You

Re: fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-07 Thread Pete French
That was a rule of thumb in the heyday of async serial lines, which used a start and stop bit per byte. However, ethernet at 100Mbit is 4B5B coded at a 125mhz rate. So the raw Errr, 4B5B *is* 10 bits per byte surely? Even in the later days of modems this rule applied less and less,

Re: fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-07 Thread Joe Koberg
Pete French wrote: However, ethernet at 100Mbit is 4B5B coded at a 125mhz rate. So the raw Errr, 4B5B *is* 10 bits per byte surely? ... Gig ether is mainly 8B10, as is Firewire, SATA, FibreChannel and a Mind you, it assumes that you know the real bit rate, which in the case of 100baseT

Re: fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-06 Thread Bartosz Stec
Alfred Perlstein wrote: * Bartosz Stec [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081003 07:23] wrote: Hello again :) With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it normal? FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Sat Sep 6 01:52:12

Re: fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-06 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:02:33AM +0200, Bartosz Stec wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: * Bartosz Stec [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081003 07:23] wrote: Hello again :) With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS.

Re: fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-06 Thread Andrei Kolu
Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:02:33AM +0200, Bartosz Stec wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: * Bartosz Stec [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081003 07:23] wrote: Hello again :) With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when copying files over

Re: fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-06 Thread Clifton Royston
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 10:29:35AM +0300, Andrei Kolu wrote: ... I remember when on FreeBSD 4.x I was able to copy files from samba and to samba up to 12MB/s on 100Mbit lan. This part seems unlikely, particularly as bit rates are measured in decimal millions not computer millions.

Re: fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-06 Thread Bartosz Stec
Jeremy Chadwick pisze: On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:02:33AM +0200, Bartosz Stec wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: * Bartosz Stec [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081003 07:23] wrote: Hello again :) With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when copying files over

Re: fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-06 Thread Adam McDougall
Bartosz Stec wrote: BTW overall SAMBA performance still sucks on 7.1-pre as much as on RELENG_5 ...:( - 7.5 MB/s peak. 7.5MB is 75% effeciency of a 100mbit card. Not amazing, but not sucks. Where do you see faster performance? Between windows machines on the same hardware or linux

Re: fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-06 Thread Andrei Kolu
Clifton Royston wrote: On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 10:29:35AM +0300, Andrei Kolu wrote: ... I remember when on FreeBSD 4.x I was able to copy files from samba and to samba up to 12MB/s on 100Mbit lan. This part seems unlikely, particularly as bit rates are measured in decimal millions

Re: fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-06 Thread Pete French
1 megabit = 106 = 1,000,000 bits which is equal to 125,000 bytes. you are assuming eight bits per byte - but this is a serial line so you should use ten bits per byte instead. -pete. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-06 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 08:38:13AM -0400, Adam McDougall wrote: Bartosz Stec wrote: BTW overall SAMBA performance still sucks on 7.1-pre as much as on RELENG_5 ...:( - 7.5 MB/s peak. 7.5MB is 75% effeciency of a 100mbit card. Not amazing, but not sucks. Where do you see faster

Re: fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-05 Thread Alfred Perlstein
* Bartosz Stec [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081003 07:23] wrote: Hello again :) With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it normal? FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Sat Sep 6 01:52:12 CEST 2008 fxp0: Intel

fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-03 Thread Bartosz Stec
Hello again :) With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it normal? FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Sat Sep 6 01:52:12 CEST 2008 fxp0: Intel 82801DB (ICH4) Pro/100 Ethernet port 0xc800-0xc83f mem

Re: fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-03 Thread Pieter de Goeje
On Friday 03 October 2008, Bartosz Stec wrote: Hello again :) With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it normal? Yes. You don't want to use polling unless you set kern.hz to 1 or something in

Re: fxp performance with POLLING

2008-10-03 Thread Chuck Swiger
Pieter de Goeje wrote: On Friday 03 October 2008, Bartosz Stec wrote: Hello again :) With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it normal? Yes. You don't want to use polling unless you set kern.hz to