* nixlists [2010-01-14 08:39]:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Henning Brauer
> wrote:
> > * nixlists [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
On 2010-01-06, Stuart Henderson 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) transmitting, 920Mb/s with
--- On Thu, 1/14/10, Jean-Francois wrote:
> From: Jean-Francois
> 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 at
Le mardi 05 janvier 2010 09:04:53, nixlists a icrit :
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Bret S. Lambert
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 f
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Henning Brauer
wrote:
> * nixlists [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
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=en&a=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
wrote:
> *
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 wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Henning Braue
* nixlists [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, but still..
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Henning Brauer
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 bandwidth 1Gb queue
* nixlists [2010-01-14 01:09]:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Henning Brauer 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 queu
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Henning Brauer 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 em NIC , the clie
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * nixlists [2010-01-06 09:33]:
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Henning Brauer 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.
* nixlists [2010-01-06 09:33]:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Henning Brauer 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, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS Web S
* Uwe Werler [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. others have improv
> * 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 o
On 2010-01-05, Aaron Mason 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
performance much more than sw
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> I really like the 275 -> 420MBit/s change for 4.6 -> current with pf.
Disabling pf gives a couple of MB/s more.
* Iqigo Ortiz de Urbina [2010-01-05 11:24]:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Tomas Bodzar 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
Rpc unfortunately is slow.
On Jan 5, 2010, at 2:04, nixlists wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Bret S. Lambert
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, an
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Tomas Bodzar 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 message in misc (wh
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 03:04:53AM -0500, nixlists wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Bret S. Lambert 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 ju
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 wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Bret S. Lamb
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Bret S. Lambert 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 more. Far from 10 MB
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 01:02:08AM -0500, nixlists wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Aaron Mason
> 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
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Aaron Mason
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 frames? Both
cards suppor
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:05 PM, nixlists 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 el-cheapo gig-
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 el-cheapo gig-e switch and 'em' Intel NIC and a msk
NIC? Is that reasonab
27 matches
Mail list logo
