Polling should not produce any improvement over interrupts for EM0.
The EM0 card will aggregate 8-14+ packets per interrupt, or more.
which is only around 8000 interrupts/sec. I've got a ton of these
cards installed.
# mount_nfs -a 4 dhcp61:/home /mnt
# dd if=/mnt/x
David G. Lawrence wrote:
tests. With the re driver, no change except placing a 100BT setup with
no packet loss to a gigE setup (both linksys switches) will cause
serious packet loss at 20Mbps data rates. I have discovered the only
way to get good performance with no packet loss was to
Robert Watson wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Sean McNeil wrote:
I have to disagree. Packet loss is likely according to some of my
tests. With the re driver, no change except placing a 100BT setup with
no packet loss to a gigE setup (both linksys switches) will cause
serious packet loss at 20Mbps
tests. With the re driver, no change except placing a 100BT setup with
no packet loss to a gigE setup (both linksys switches) will cause
serious packet loss at 20Mbps data rates. I have discovered the only
way to get good performance with no packet loss was to
1) Remove interrupt
ifnet and netisr queues. You could also try
setting net.isr.enable=1 to
enable direct dispatch, which in the in-bound
direction would reduce the
number of context switches and queueing. It
sounds like the device driver
has a limit of 256 receive and transmit
descriptors, which one
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Sean McNeil wrote:
I have to disagree. Packet loss is likely according to some of my
tests. With the re driver, no change except placing a 100BT setup with
no packet loss to a gigE setup (both linksys switches) will cause
serious packet loss at 20Mbps data rates. I
I did FastEthernet throughput test by Smartbits with SmartApp.
It's simpler than TCP throughput measurement. :)
This Smartbits has some FastEthernet ports, has no GbE ports.
The router is consist of single Xeon 2.4GHz which is HTT enabled and
two on-boarded em interfaces. The kernel is
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 11:34 +, Robert Watson wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Sean McNeil wrote:
I have to disagree. Packet loss is likely according to some of my
tests. With the re driver, no change except placing a 100BT setup with
no packet loss to a gigE setup (both linksys switches)
Sean McNeil wrote this message on Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 12:14 -0800:
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 11:34 +, Robert Watson wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Sean McNeil wrote:
I have to disagree. Packet loss is likely according to some of my
tests. With the re driver, no change except placing a
Hi John-Mark,
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 13:31 -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Sean McNeil wrote this message on Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 12:14 -0800:
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 11:34 +, Robert Watson wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Sean McNeil wrote:
I have to disagree. Packet loss is likely
:Increasing the interrupt moderation frequency worked on the re driver,
:but it only made it marginally better. Even without moderation,
:however, I could lose packets without m_defrag. I suspect that there is
:something in the higher level layers that is causing the packet loss. I
:have no
Jeremie, thank you for your comment.
I did simple benchmark at some settings.
I used two boxes which are single Xeon 2.4GHz with on-boarded em.
I measured a TCP throughput by iperf.
These results show that the throughput of TCP increased if Interrupt
Moderation is turned OFF. At least,
On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 21:27 +0900, Shunsuke SHINOMIYA wrote:
Jeremie, thank you for your comment.
I did simple benchmark at some settings.
I used two boxes which are single Xeon 2.4GHz with on-boarded em.
I measured a TCP throughput by iperf.
These results show that the throughput
: I did simple benchmark at some settings.
:
: I used two boxes which are single Xeon 2.4GHz with on-boarded em.
: I measured a TCP throughput by iperf.
:
: These results show that the throughput of TCP increased if Interrupt
:Moderation is turned OFF. At least, adjusting these parameters affected
Thank you, Matt.
Very interesting, but the only reason you get lower results is simply
because the TCP window is not big enough. That's it.
Yes, I knew that adjusting TCP window size is important to use up a link.
However I wanted to show adjusting the parameters of Interrupt
: Yes, I knew that adjusting TCP window size is important to use up a link.
: However I wanted to show adjusting the parameters of Interrupt
: Moderation affects network performance.
:
: And I think a packet loss was occured by enabled Interrupt Moderation.
: The mechanism of a packet loss in
On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 20:42 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: Yes, I knew that adjusting TCP window size is important to use up a link.
: However I wanted to show adjusting the parameters of Interrupt
: Moderation affects network performance.
:
: And I think a packet loss was occured by enabled
if you suppose your computer has sufficient performance, please try to
disable or adjust parameters of Interrupt Moderation of em.
Nice ! It would be even better if there was a boot-time sysctl to
configure the behaviour of this feature, or something like ifconfig
link0 option of the fxp(4)
Hi, Jeremie, how is this?
To disable Interrupt Moderation, sysctl hw.em?.int_throttle_valve=0.
However, because this patch is just made now, it is not fully tested.
if you suppose your computer has sufficient performance, please try to
disable or adjust parameters of Interrupt Moderation
Hi, Jeremie, how is this?
To disable Interrupt Moderation, sysctl hw.em?.int_throttle_valve=0.
Great, I would have called it int_throttle_ceil, but that's a detail
and my opinion is totally subjective.
However, because this patch is just made now, it is not fully tested.
I'll give it a
Am Donnerstag, 18. November 2004 13:27 schrieb Robert Watson:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Emanuel Strobl wrote:
I really love 5.3 in many ways but here're some unbelievable transfer
First, thanks a lot to all of you paying attention to my problem again.
I'll use this as a cumulative answer to the
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Emanuel Strobl wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 18. November 2004 13:27 schrieb Robert Watson:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Emanuel Strobl wrote:
I really love 5.3 in many ways but here're some unbelievable transfer
First, thanks a lot to all of you paying attention to my problem
Am Freitag, 19. November 2004 13:56 schrieb Robert Watson:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Emanuel Strobl wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 18. November 2004 13:27 schrieb Robert Watson:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Emanuel Strobl wrote:
I really love 5.3 in many ways but here're some unbelievable transfer
[...]
In message:
!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACABgA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKQ/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Daniel Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Finally, my question. What would you recommend:
: 1) Run with ACPI disabled and debug.mpsafenet=1 and hope that the mix of
:
I changed cables and couldn't reproduce that bad results so I changed cables
back but also cannot reproduce them, especially the ggate write, formerly
with 2,6MB/s now performs at 15MB/s, but I haven't done any polling tests
anymore, just interrupt driven, since Matt explained that em
--On Mittwoch, 17. November 2004 20:48 Uhr -0500 Mike Jakubik [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
I have two PCs connected together, using the em card. One is FreeBSD 6
from Fri Nov 5 , the other is Windows XP. I am using the default mtu of
1500, no polling, and i get ~ 21MB/s tranfser rates via ftp. Im
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 11:57:41PM +0100, Emanuel Strobl wrote:
+ Dear best guys,
+
+ I really love 5.3 in many ways but here're some unbelievable transfer rates,
+ after I went out and bought a pair of Intel GigaBit Ethernet Cards to solve
+ my performance problem (*laugh*):
[...]
I done some
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Emanuel Strobl wrote:
I really love 5.3 in many ways but here're some unbelievable transfer
rates, after I went out and bought a pair of Intel GigaBit Ethernet
Cards to solve my performance problem (*laugh*):
I think the first thing you want to do is to try and
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 11:57:41PM +0100, Emanuel Strobl wrote:
+ Dear best guys,
+
+ I really love 5.3 in many ways but here're some unbelievable transfer
rates,
+ after I went out and bought a pair of Intel GigaBit Ethernet Cards to
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 12:27:44PM +, Robert Watson wrote..
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Emanuel Strobl wrote:
I really love 5.3 in many ways but here're some unbelievable transfer
rates, after I went out and bought a pair of Intel GigaBit Ethernet
Cards to solve my performance problem
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Wilko Bulte wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 12:27:44PM +, Robert Watson wrote..
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Emanuel Strobl wrote:
I really love 5.3 in many ways but here're some unbelievable transfer
rates, after I went out and bought a pair of Intel GigaBit
Andreas Braukmann said:
--On Mittwoch, 17. November 2004 20:48 Uhr -0500 Mike Jakubik
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have two PCs connected together, using the em card. One is FreeBSD 6
from Fri Nov 5 , the other is Windows XP. I am using the default mtu of
1500, no polling, and i get ~ 21MB/s
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: (1) I'd first off check that there wasn't a serious interrupt problem on
: the box, which is often triggered by ACPI problems. Get the box to be
: as idle as possible, and then use vmstat -i or stat
M. Warner Losh wrote:
Also, make sure that you aren't sharing interrupts between
GIANT-LOCKED and non-giant-locked cards. This might be exposing bugs
in the network layer that debug.mpsafenet=0 might correct. Just
noticed that our setup here has that setup, so I'll be looking into
that
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Daniel Eriksson wrote:
I have a Tyan Tiger MPX board (dual AthlonMP) that has two 64bit PCI
slots. I have an Adaptec 29160 and a dual port Intel Pro/1000 MT
plugged into those slots.
As can be seen from the vmstat -i output below, em1 shares ithread with
ahc0. This
Polling should not produce any improvement over interrupts for EM0.
The EM0 card will aggregate 8-14+ packets per interrupt, or more.
which is only around 8000 interrupts/sec. I've got a ton of these
cards installed.
# mount_nfs -a 4 dhcp61:/home /mnt
# dd if=/mnt/x
Hi list,
if you suppose your computer has sufficient performance, please try to
disable or adjust parameters of Interrupt Moderation of em.
In my router(Xeon 2.4GHz and on-board two em interfaces) case, it
improves a router's packet forwarding performance. I think the
interrupt delay by
Dear best guys,
I really love 5.3 in many ways but here're some unbelievable transfer rates,
after I went out and bought a pair of Intel GigaBit Ethernet Cards to solve
my performance problem (*laugh*):
(In short, see *** below)
Tests were done with two Intel GigaBit Ethernet cards (82547EI,
On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 23:57 +0100, Emanuel Strobl wrote:
Dear best guys,
I really love 5.3 in many ways but here're some unbelievable transfer rates,
after I went out and bought a pair of Intel GigaBit Ethernet Cards to solve
my performance problem (*laugh*):
(In short, see *** below)
Am Donnerstag, 18. November 2004 00:17 schrieb Sean McNeil:
On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 23:57 +0100, Emanuel Strobl wrote:
Dear best guys,
I really love 5.3 in many ways but here're some unbelievable transfer
rates, after I went out and bought a pair of Intel GigaBit Ethernet Cards
to solve
Emanuel Strobl wrote:
Dear best guys,
I really love 5.3 in many ways but here're some unbelievable transfer rates,
after I went out and bought a pair of Intel GigaBit Ethernet Cards to solve
my performance problem (*laugh*):
(In short, see *** below)
Tests were done with two Intel GigaBit
Am Donnerstag, 18. November 2004 00:33 schrieb Scott Long:
Emanuel Strobl wrote:
Dear best guys,
I really love 5.3 in many ways but here're some unbelievable transfer
rates, after I went out and bought a pair of Intel GigaBit Ethernet Cards
to solve my performance problem (*laugh*):
Emanuel Strobl wrote:
[ ... ]
Tests were done with two Intel GigaBit Ethernet cards (82547EI, 32bit PCI
Desktop adapter MT) connected directly without a switch/hub
If filesharing via NFS is your primary goal, it's reasonable to test that,
however it would be easier to make sense of your results
ping only tests latency *not* throughput. So it is not really a good test.
- aW
0n Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 07:01:24PM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Emanuel Strobl wrote:
[ ... ]
Tests were done with two Intel GigaBit Ethernet cards (82547EI, 32bit
PCI
Am Donnerstag, 18. November 2004 01:01 schrieb Chuck Swiger:
Emanuel Strobl wrote:
[ ... ]
Tests were done with two Intel GigaBit Ethernet cards (82547EI, 32bit PCI
Desktop adapter MT) connected directly without a switch/hub
If filesharing via NFS is your primary goal, it's reasonable to
Emanuel Strobl said:
~ 15MB/s
.and with 1m blocksize:
test2:~#17: dd if=/dev/zero of=/samsung/testfile bs=1m
^C61+0 records in
60+0 records out
62914560 bytes transferred in 4.608726 secs (13651182 bytes/sec)
-
46 matches
Mail list logo
