* nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com [2010-01-14 08:39]:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de
wrote:
* nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com [2010-01-14 03:21]:
test results on old P4 are unfortunately pretty much pointless.
Why?
cpu0: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU
On 2010-01-06, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
With a quick test with PCIE RTL8111B on a core2 T7200 machine
and PCI-X BCM5704C on an opteron 146 (both 2GHz), using 1500 MTU and
D-Link DGS-1224T and SMC GS16-Smart switches between them, I get
about 540Mb/s with the re(4)
--- On Thu, 1/14/10, Jean-Francois jfsimon1...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Jean-Francois jfsimon1...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Maximizing File/Network I/O
To: misc@openbsd.org
Received: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 12:53 PM
Le mardi 05 janvier 2010 09:04:53,
nixlists a icrit :
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010
Le mardi 05 janvier 2010 09:04:53, nixlists a icrit :
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Bret S. Lambert blamb...@openbsd.org
wrote:
Start with mount_nfs options, specifically -r and -w; I assume that
you would have mentioned tweaking those if you had already done so.
Setting -r and -w to
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote:
I really like the 275 - 420MBit/s change for 4.6 - current with pf.
Update: both machines run -current again this time. I think my initial
tcpbench results were poor because of running cbq queuing on 4.6. The
server has
* nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com [2010-01-14 01:09]:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote:
I really like the 275 - 420MBit/s change for 4.6 - current with pf.
Update: both machines run -current again this time. I think my initial
tcpbench results were
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de
wrote:
pf enabled on just the tcpbench server: with cbq queuing enabled on
the internal interface as follows (for tcpbench only, not for real
network use) - no other queues defined on $int_if:
altq on $int_if cbq
* nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com [2010-01-14 03:21]:
test results on old P4 are unfortunately pretty much pointless.
Why?
cpu0: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.53GHz (GenuineIntel 686-class) 2.52 GHz
Isn't 2.52GHz fast enough for gigabit links? I know that's like half
that in P3 cycles,
What shows 'systat vmstat' during your tests plus other windows like
mbufs and similar, what shows 'vmstat -m' and so on. It will say much
more about actual situation of whole system then tcpbench.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:49 AM, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:32
very OT :
Is there some tool for inspection of CPU cache like this one
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-2240/cpustat-1m?l=ena=view ? I
found in man pages memconfig(8), but if I'm understand it correctly
then it's just for setting.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Henning Brauer
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de
wrote:
* nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com [2010-01-14 03:21]:
test results on old P4 are unfortunately pretty much pointless.
Why?
cpu0: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.53GHz (GenuineIntel 686-class) 2.52
GHz
Isn't 2.52GHz
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote:
* nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com [2010-01-06 09:33]:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote:
I really like the 275 - 420MBit/s change for 4.6 - current with pf.
Disabling pf gives a
* Iqigo Ortiz de Urbina tarom...@gmail.com [2010-01-05 11:24]:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com
wrote:
There is much more to do. You can find some ideas eg. here
http://www.openbsd.org/papers/tuning-openbsd.ps . It's good idea to
follow outputs of
* Uwe Werler uwe.wer...@o3si.de [2010-01-08 23:38]:
I really like the 275 - 420MBit/s change for 4.6 - current with pf.
Oh cool! There's this explained a little bit deeper? Sounds VERY
interesting.
well, yu know, i have been working on pf and general network stack
performance for years.
* nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com [2010-01-06 09:33]:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote:
I really like the 275 - 420MBit/s change for 4.6 - current with pf.
Disabling pf gives a couple of MB/s more.
really. what a surprise.
--
Henning Brauer,
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote:
I really like the 275 - 420MBit/s change for 4.6 - current with pf.
Disabling pf gives a couple of MB/s more.
On 2010-01-05, Aaron Mason simplersolut...@gmail.com wrote:
With top notch stuff (we're talking HP Procurve/Cisco Catalyst and
Intel PRO/1000+ cards here) plus tuning for Jumbo frames, you can get
to the 95MB/sec range.
Things on the computer side (NICs, motherboard, drivers etc) affect
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Bret S. Lambert blamb...@openbsd.org wrote:
Start with mount_nfs options, specifically -r and -w; I assume that
you would have mentioned tweaking those if you had already done so.
Setting -r and -w to 16384, and jumbo frames to 9000 yields just a
couple of MB/s
There is much more to do. You can find some ideas eg. here
http://www.openbsd.org/papers/tuning-openbsd.ps . It's good idea to
follow outputs of systat, vmstat and top for some time to find
bottlenecks.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:04 AM, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 03:04:53AM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Bret S. Lambert blamb...@openbsd.org wrote:
Start with mount_nfs options, specifically -r and -w; I assume that
you would have mentioned tweaking those if you had already done so.
Setting -r and -w to
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com wrote:
There is much more to do. You can find some ideas eg. here
http://www.openbsd.org/papers/tuning-openbsd.ps . It's good idea to
follow outputs of systat, vmstat and top for some time to find
bottlenecks.
I recall a
Rpc unfortunately is slow.
On Jan 5, 2010, at 2:04, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Bret S. Lambert
blamb...@openbsd.org wrote:
Start with mount_nfs options, specifically -r and -w; I assume that
you would have mentioned tweaking those if you had already
* Iqigo Ortiz de Urbina tarom...@gmail.com [2010-01-05 11:24]:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com wrote:
There is much more to do. You can find some ideas eg. here
http://www.openbsd.org/papers/tuning-openbsd.ps . It's good idea to
follow outputs of
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:05 PM, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi.
I have two machines one running 4.6, the other running a recent
snapshot of current. tcpbench reports maximum throughput of 275 Mbit -
that's around 34 MB/s between them over a gig-E link. What should one
expect with an
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Aaron Mason simplersolut...@gmail.com
wrote:
It would be best put this way - if you go for the lowest bidder, in
most cases you get what you pay for. Your results aren't too bad
considering what's in use.
Thanks. Where could I find more info on tuning jumbo
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 01:02:08AM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Aaron Mason simplersolut...@gmail.com
wrote:
It would be best put this way - if you go for the lowest bidder, in
most cases you get what you pay for. Your results aren't too bad
considering what's
26 matches
Mail list logo
