Re: ixl driver very poor network performance

revious system (OpenBSD 7.0) > the previous hardware was different! (2x Xeon E5-2650, 64Gb RAM, > Intel X520 network cards) > > *Problem:* > > After upgrade with hardware change, we have very poor network performance!! > Example: A simple veeam backup restore that goes

Re: ixl driver very poor network performance

cards) * we migrated the settings from the previous system (OpenBSD 7.0) the previous hardware was different! (2x Xeon E5-2650, 64Gb RAM, Intel X520 network cards) *Problem:* After upgrade with hardware change, we have very poor network performance!! Example: A simple veeam backup restore

ixl driver very poor network performance

have very poor network performance!! Example: A simple veeam backup restore that goes through the openbsd router hangs the network completely (very big lag) In this case, the SSH connection on the router is have lag! But OpenBSD dont have high CPU usage. If i make simple iperf speed test from

Re: Weird network performance with iwn(4)

Thanks for taking a shot at this! I fiddled with the few options this AP has related to the 5GHz mode, nothing special, really (channel width, number, mode). Interestingly enough, the AP says its Country is set to 'EU' (whatever that means) - can't grasp why it would report 'US', though.

Re: Weird network performance with iwn(4)

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 09:23:42AM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: > could you send me a pcap of 5GHz beacons from this AP? Nothing in the beacon you sent off-list stands out. I don't see a reason why things wouldn't work as they should. The AP is set to country 'US' -- if this is incorrect then

Re: Weird network performance with iwn(4)

On 2024-01-02, Murat D. Kadyrov wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 09:23:42AM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 07:54:47PM +, Lévai, Dániel wrote: >> > Danel Levai wrote: >> > > Stuart Henderson wrote: >> > > > I checked for openwrt support but your AP has a relatively

Re: Weird network performance with iwn(4)

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 09:23:42AM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 07:54:47PM +, Lévai, Dániel wrote: > > Danel Levai wrote: > > > Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > > I checked for openwrt support but your AP has a relatively uncommon > > > > Realtek SoC and it seems fairly

Re: Weird network performance with iwn(4)

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 07:54:47PM +, Lévai, Dániel wrote: > Danel Levai wrote: > > Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > I checked for openwrt support but your AP has a relatively uncommon > > > Realtek SoC and it seems fairly unlikely to happen so you're probably > > > stuck with the vendor

Re: Weird network performance with iwn(4)

Danel Levai wrote: > Stuart Henderson wrote: > > I checked for openwrt support but your AP has a relatively uncommon > > Realtek SoC and it seems fairly unlikely to happen so you're probably > > stuck with the vendor firmware. > > > > Maybe try forcing "mode 11n" or "mode 11g" with ifconfig and

Re: Weird network performance with iwn(4)

Stuart Henderson wrote: > I checked for openwrt support but your AP has a relatively uncommon > Realtek SoC and it seems fairly unlikely to happen so you're probably > stuck with the vendor firmware. > > Maybe try forcing "mode 11n" or "mode 11g" with ifconfig and see if > that's any better.

Re: Weird network performance with iwn(4)

On Thursday, December 7th, 2023 at 19:28, Mihai Popescu > Just a lucky guess, no offense please, are you using ftp2.eu.openbsd.org ? Haha, no problem, it happens with everything, it's not about the mirrors, really, it's really just a frame of reference. Happens with my own mirror, too

Re: Weird network performance with iwn(4)

I checked for openwrt support but your AP has a relatively uncommon Realtek SoC and it seems fairly unlikely to happen so you're probably stuck with the vendor firmware. Maybe try forcing "mode 11n" or "mode 11g" with ifconfig and see if that's any better. On 2023-12-08, Lévai Dániel wrote: >

Re: Weird network performance with iwn(4)

On Thursday, December 7th, 2023 at 17:10, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 03:39:33PM +, Lévai, Dániel wrote: > > > Hi all! > > > > Recently my trusty T410 died (had iwn(4) in it) and had to switch to an > > E450 - but this has iwm(4). > > Never had any issues with

Re: Weird network performance with iwn(4)

On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 03:39:33PM +, Lévai, Dániel wrote: > Hi all! > > Recently my trusty T410 died (had iwn(4) in it) and had to switch to an E450 > - but \ > this has iwm(4). Never had any issues with iwn(4) and iwm(4) seems to operate > \ > perfectly fine in some scenarios, e.g.

Re: Weird network performance with iwn(4)

On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 03:39:33PM +, Lévai, Dániel wrote: > Hi all! > > Recently my trusty T410 died (had iwn(4) in it) and had to switch to an E450 > - but this has iwm(4). > Never had any issues with iwn(4) and iwm(4) seems to operate perfectly fine > in some scenarios, e.g.

Weird network performance with iwn(4)

Hi all! Recently my trusty T410 died (had iwn(4) in it) and had to switch to an E450 - but this has iwm(4). Never had any issues with iwn(4) and iwm(4) seems to operate perfectly fine in some scenarios, e.g. speedtest.net indicates 100/100Mbit down/up speed. But downloading a base74.tgz set

Re: PC Engines apu4 network performance

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 6:54 PM Paulo Manoel Mafra wrote: > > Hello guys, > I've configured a pc engines apu4 with openbsd 6.9 and I verified the > network performance is around 550 mbit/s with pf and 700 mbit/s without. > > Is there any known issue for that poor performance ? &g

Re: PC Engines apu4 network performance

On 2021-09-08, Paulo Manoel Mafra wrote: > Hello guys, > I've configured a pc engines apu4 with openbsd 6.9 and I verified the > network performance is around 550 mbit/s with pf and 700 mbit/s without. > > Is there any known issue for that poor performance ? > Running anot

PC Engines apu4 network performance

Hello guys, I've configured a pc engines apu4 with openbsd 6.9 and I verified the network performance is around 550 mbit/s with pf and 700 mbit/s without. Is there any known issue for that poor performance ? Running another OS on the same hardware I can reach some like 920 mbit/s. I've googled

Re: PC Engines apu4 network performance

not be the bottleneck. Elias On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 9:52 AM Paulo Manoel Mafra wrote: > Hello guys, > I've configured a pc engines apu4 with openbsd 6.9 and I verified the > network performance is around 550 mbit/s with pf and 700 mbit/s without. > > Is there any known issu

Re: poor ethernet network performance

Keegan Saunders [kee...@undefinedbehaviour.org] wrote: > I'm noticing that my OpenBSD desktop with a Realtek 8168 ethernet controller > (re(4) driver) is experiencing slow network speeds on OpenBSD 6.9 (not > recent, has been an issue before) > Why not include a dmesg? How do you expect anyone

poor ethernet network performance

I'm noticing that my OpenBSD desktop with a Realtek 8168 ethernet controller (re(4) driver) is experiencing slow network speeds on OpenBSD 6.9 (not recent, has been an issue before) For example, on OpenBSD, cloning GitHub repos has about <400kb/s download speeds whereas on Linux it is upwards of

Re: poor ethernet network performance

On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 08:23, Keegan Saunders wrote: > I'm noticing that my OpenBSD desktop with a Realtek 8168 ethernet > controller > (re(4) driver) is experiencing slow network speeds on OpenBSD 6.9 (not > recent, has been an issue before) > I've had something similar in the past and it was

Re: poor ethernet network performance

On 5/16/2021 6:07 PM, Keegan Saunders wrote: I'm noticing that my OpenBSD desktop with a Realtek 8168 ethernet controller (re(4) driver) is experiencing slow network speeds on OpenBSD 6.9 (not recent, has been an issue before) For example, on OpenBSD, cloning GitHub repos has about <400kb/s

Slow network performance - iperf3/tcpbench on local machine

Hi, I'm trying to debug some general network slowness with my 6.8 server (i7-3930k) that seems to affect all protocols (e.g. Samba capping at 70MB/s, FTP at 45MB/s for upload). I've run some iperf3/tcpbench tests and the results seems low even when running both client and server on the same

Re: Answer 2 / Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

On 2019-04-09, Mark Schneider wrote: > Hi Peter > > Thank you very much for your feedback. > > It looks like the performance issue is more complex than I have expected. > Just for the test I have installed OpenBSD 6.4 and FreeBSD 13.0 on few > different servers and compared results (details are

Re: Answer 2 / Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

. Probably I will upgrade my few years old hardware (Xeon(R) CPU E31270 @ 3.40GHz, with 32GB ECC DDR RAM and Samsung 860 pro SSD) to something like current AMD Ryzen Threadripper, DDR RAM and Optane SSD. In case I could help with 10Gbit/s network performance tests for OpenBSD 6.5 please let me

Re: Answer 2 / Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

On 4/9/19 6:56 PM, Mark Schneider wrote: Hi Peter Thank you very much for your feedback. It looks like the performance issue is more complex than I have expected. Just for the test I have installed OpenBSD 6.4 and FreeBSD 13.0 on few different servers and compared results (details are in

Re: compared filesystem performance, was Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

red filesystem performance, was Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4 gwes [g...@oat.com] wrote: That doesn't answer the question: if you say dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda (linux) /dev/rsd0c (bsd) bs=64k count=100 what transfer rate is reported totally agree, Anatoli could you please comp

Answer 6 - ix network driver from FreeBSD 13.0 / Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

n.org Am 09.04.2019 13:31, schrieb Stuart Henderson: On 2019-04-07, Mark Schneider wrote: Short feedback: Just for the test I have checked the 10GBit network performance between two FreeBSD 13.0 servers (both HP DL380g7 machines) transfering data in both directions # --- ironm@fbsdsrv2:~ $

Answer 5 / Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

Am 08.04.2019 23:46, schrieb Anatoli: Thank you very much for the idea Anatoli! Running dd with "/dev/zero" and "/dev/null" gave me back a very good overview what is going on (different server hardware and operating systems) ironm@wheezy:~$ time dd if=/dev/zero of=file1.tmp bs=1M count=4096

Answer 4 / Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

bel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda: On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 5:21 PM Mark Schneider wrote: Short feedback: Just for the test I have checked the 10GBit network performance between two FreeBSD 13.0 servers (both HP DL380g7 machines) transfering data in both directions # --- ironm@fbsdsrv2:~ $ scp ir

Answer 3 / Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

s, Anatoli *From:* Mark Schneider *Sent:* Saturday, April 06, 2019 17:52 *To:* Misc *Subject:* 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4 Hi, Please allow me few questions regarding 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4. I face quite low network performance for the Intell X520-DA2 10GBi

Answer 2 / Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

e too" but at least it rules out it being an issue with your particular hardware. Kind Regards, Peter Membrey - Original Message - From: "Mark Schneider" To: "misc" Sent: Monday, 8 April, 2019 06:09:09 Subject: Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4 Short

Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

der wrote: Short feedback: Just for the test I have checked the 10GBit network performance between two FreeBSD 13.0 servers (both HP DL380g7 machines) transfering data in both directions # --- ironm@fbsdsrv2:~ $ scp ironm@200.0.0.10:/home/ironm/t2.iso t100.iso Password for ironm@fbsdsr

Re: compared filesystem performance, was Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

gwes [g...@oat.com] wrote: > > That doesn't answer the question: if you say > dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda (linux) /dev/rsd0c (bsd) bs=64k count=100 > what transfer rate is reported > totally agree, Anatoli could you please compare ? > That number represents the maximum possible long-term

Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

On 2019-04-07, Mark Schneider wrote: > Short feedback: > > Just for the test I have checked the 10GBit network performance > between two FreeBSD 13.0 servers (both HP DL380g7 machines) > transfering data in both directions > > # --- > ironm@fbsdsrv2:~ $ scp ironm@200.0

Re: compared filesystem performance, was Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

On 04/08/19 19:29, Chris Cappuccio wrote: gwes [g...@oat.com] wrote: What is the rated transfer rate of the SSD you're using to test? SATA 3 wire speed is 6G/sec and realistically 500MB/sec raw rate is near the top. Anything over that is an artefact probably from a cache somewhere. He's

Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

with nanoseconds latency, but that's not the case unfortunately (at least in my setup). *From:* Joseph Mayer *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2019 22:52 *To:* Chris Cappuccio *Cc:* Anatoli , Misc *Subject:* Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4 On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 3:28 AM, Chris Cappuccio

Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 3:28 AM, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > Anatoli [m...@anatoli.ws] wrote: > > I've seen extremely slow HDD performance in OpenBSD, like 12x slower than on > > Linux, also no filesystem cache, so depending on your HDD with scp you may > > be hitting the max throughput for the

compared filesystem performance, was Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

can suggest some specific tests to analyze the cause (i.e. filesystem, hardware issues, scheduling, etc.), please let me know. *From:* Chris Cappuccio *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2019 16:28 *To:* Anatoli *Cc:* Misc *Subject:* Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4 Anatoli [m

Re: compared filesystem performance, was Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

gwes [g...@oat.com] wrote: > > What is the rated transfer rate of the SSD you're using to test? > SATA 3 wire speed is 6G/sec and realistically 500MB/sec raw rate > is near the top. > > Anything over that is an artefact probably from a cache somewhere. > He's using NVMe with its own DRAM

Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 5:21 PM Mark Schneider wrote: > Short feedback: > > Just for the test I have checked the 10GBit network performance > between two FreeBSD 13.0 servers (both HP DL380g7 machines) > transfering data in both directions > > # --- > ironm@fbsdsrv2:~ $ sc

Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

Anatoli [m...@anatoli.ws] wrote: > > I've seen extremely slow HDD performance in OpenBSD, like 12x slower than on > Linux, also no filesystem cache, so depending on your HDD with scp you may > be hitting the max throughput for the FS, not the network. > 12x slower? That's insane. What are you

Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

on Linux, also no filesystem cache, so depending on your HDD with scp you may be hitting the max throughput for the FS, not the network. Regards, Anatoli *From:* Mark Schneider *Sent:* Saturday, April 06, 2019 17:52 *To:* Misc *Subject:* 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4 Hi, Please

Re: 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

Short feedback: Just for the test I have checked the 10GBit network performance between two FreeBSD 13.0 servers (both HP DL380g7 machines) transfering data in both directions # --- ironm@fbsdsrv2:~ $ scp ironm@200.0.0.10:/home/ironm/t2.iso t100.iso Password for ironm@fbsdsrv1: t2.iso

10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4

Hi, Please allow me few questions regarding 10GBit network performance on OpenBSD 6.4. I face quite low network performance for the Intell X520-DA2 10GBit network card. Test configuration in OpenBSD-Linux-10GBit_net_performance.txt - http://paste.debian.net/1076461/ Low transfer rate

Re: Reduced network performance since installing 6.4

misc@, I am happy to report the problem disappeared without the tweaks mentioned in my last email upon a cold reboot. In fact, I am now observing performance gains over 6.3. Out of curiosity, is it possible that warm reboots do not completely initialize everything cold reboots do, either at the

Re: Reduced network performance since installing 6.4

On 2018-11-05, Tony Sarendal wrote: > Hola, > > Unrelated to wifi, I have seen a dramatic drop in forwarding performance in > 6.4 and later. > I run some basic performance tests to verify the releases before we deploy > them. > For the same test on the same hardware I have this: > > Release, pps

Re: Reduced network performance since installing 6.4

Hola, Unrelated to wifi, I have seen a dramatic drop in forwarding performance in 6.4 and later. I run some basic performance tests to verify the releases before we deploy them. For the same test on the same hardware I have this: Release, pps snapshot, 340k 6.4, 340k 6.3, 450k 6.2, 430k 6.1,

Reduced network performance since installing 6.4

misc@, Since installing 6.4, I have noticed a significant reduction in download speeds during ordinary desktop use with my wifi adapter on the order of a 75% decrease and a much greater frequency of stalled downloads. I regret I am at a loss to describe the problem in much greater detail, but I

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

New speed record: 980Mbps with a heavy loaded MacMini. Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 01:44, Ken Withee wrote: > It’s really awesome! Approaching gig! > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Rupert Gallagher

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

I forgot, the switch must be compatible with jumbo frames. If you have a managed switch, you need to enable it. Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 14:58, Rupert Gallagher wrote: > The test had PF, NFS, and other services up. > The mtu/JumboPacket on both

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

The test had PF, NFS, and other services up. The mtu/JumboPacket on both nics is 9K bit. The wires are class 5e. The switch is a 1Gbps cisco. Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 08:19, Christer Solskogen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:42 AM,

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Rupert Gallagher wrote: > New speed record today: 963Mbps between apu2c4 and a PC, both ways. > > I never get above 550Mbit with pf enabled.

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

Ah, I’m not using pppoe so perhaps that’s significant? I have a straight ethernet set up, em0 as uplink, em1 connected to a dumb switch, em2 connected to a dumb WiFi AP. I measured the speed using fast.com on my mobile, laptop, desktop, as well as downloading large files from different servers

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

> On Nov 4, 2017, at 13:15, Stuart Henderson wrote: > >> On 2017-11-04, Peter Faiman wrote: >> Thank you for this explanation. My uplink is only 240mbit and my APU2 >> handles that perfectly, so I’m not having any of these problems. >> But the

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

Rupert Gallagher [r...@protonmail.com] wrote: > Look, I know what I am talking about. I have an apu that does what I said > using negligible cpu load. And there is nothing fancy with it. I see. Sorry, until you said this, I was not convinced that you knew. Having read these words, it's now

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

On 2017-11-04, Peter Faiman wrote: > Thank you for this explanation. My uplink is only 240mbit and my APU2 > handles that perfectly, so I’m not having any of these problems. > But the insight into the current state of networking was great! :) But it doesn't handle

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

Look, I know what I am talking about. I have an apu that does what I said using negligible cpu load. And there is nothing fancy with it. Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 17:53, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > Rupert Gallagher [r...@protonmail.com] wrote: > > You

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

Hi, i´ve also an APU2 as router. The uplink connection (16Mbit/s) is via pppoe(4) on em0 and i couldn´t manage to messure the throughput of this interface: - iftop doesn´t work on pppoe and shows nothing on em0. - ifperf also calculates some strange numbers (14669317741 Gbits/sec) when trying to

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

> On Nov 4, 2017, at 09:53, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > > Rupert Gallagher [r...@protonmail.com] wrote: >> >> You seem to say that handling larger packets is a feature of having limited >> CPU. I disagree. >> > > Rupert, I'm saying that a slower CPU can process less packets

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

Rupert Gallagher [r...@protonmail.com] wrote: > > You seem to say that handling larger packets is a feature of having limited > CPU. I disagree. > Rupert, I'm saying that a slower CPU can process less packets per second. The important measurement is packets-per-second. The APU has plenty of

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 01:51, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > Rupert Gallagher [r...@protonmail.com] wrote: >>> Out of curiosity, I just tested an apu2c4 server with obsd 6.1, against a >>> windows 10 client on LAN with a 1Gbit CISCO switch in between and 9K MTU on >>> both sides,

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

Rupert Gallagher [r...@protonmail.com] wrote: > Out of curiosity, I just tested an apu2c4 server with obsd 6.1, against a > windows 10 client on LAN with a 1Gbit CISCO switch in between and 9K MTU on > both sides, using iperf3 -P10. The result is a spectacular 950Mbits/sec. > This is not a

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

openbsd "current"... is it 6.1 or 6.2? if 6.2, was it better with 6.1? From a later message of yours, you mention ISP upload, but the OP did not mention it. Are you testing on LAN, WAN or internet? Out of curiosity, I just tested an apu2c4 server with obsd 6.1, against a windows 10 client on

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2017/11/03 00:10, Christer Solskogen wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Stuart Henderson > > wrote: > > > > Forwarding is kernel-only and should be faster than userland > >

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

On 2017/11/03 00:10, Christer Solskogen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Stuart Henderson > wrote: > > Forwarding is kernel-only and should be faster than userland > sending. So if > you're trying to determine performance when used for forwarding, >

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Christer Solskogen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Stuart Henderson > wrote: > >> Forwarding is kernel-only and should be faster than userland sending. So if >> you're trying to determine performance

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > Forwarding is kernel-only and should be faster than userland sending. So if > you're trying to determine performance when used for forwarding, you need > to > have other machine/s sending and receiving packets for

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

On 2017-11-01, Christer Solskogen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:14:03AM +0100, Christer Solskogen wrote: >> > Hi! >> > >> > I have a APU2C4 running OpenBSD-current (or.. .pretty

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:14:03AM +0100, Christer Solskogen wrote: > Hi! > > I have a APU2C4 running OpenBSD-current (or.. .pretty current, from 27th of > October) - and according to iperf I'm not getting the speed that I was > expecting. > > Between the APU and the other machines I have I get:

Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:14:03AM +0100, Christer Solskogen wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I have a APU2C4 running OpenBSD-current (or.. .pretty current, from 27th > of > > October) - and according to iperf I'm not getting the

Bad network performance on apu2c4

Hi! I have a APU2C4 running OpenBSD-current (or.. .pretty current, from 27th of October) - and according to iperf I'm not getting the speed that I was expecting. Between the APU and the other machines I have I get: 465 Mbits/sec - While between two other machines, connected to the same switch I

Poor network performance with iwn(4) Intel Centrino Wireless-N 2230

Hi I'm experiencing poor network performance when using iwn(4) on OpenBSD 5.7 amd64 snapshot (downloaded today 28/1/2015). Plugged in via re0 I see 8MB/s. On Linux using wireless I download at 1.3MB/s. On OpenBSD I download at ~73KB/s. I get the same results using GENERIC and GENERIC.MP

Re: Poor network performance with iwn(4) Intel Centrino Wireless-N 2230

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:02:39PM +, Tom Doherty wrote: Hi I'm experiencing poor network performance when using iwn(4) on OpenBSD 5.7 amd64 snapshot (downloaded today 28/1/2015). Plugged in via re0 I see 8MB/s. On Linux using wireless I download at 1.3MB/s. On OpenBSD I download

Re: poor network performance after wake from suspend

bunch. no. thanks! On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Mike Larkin mlar...@azathoth.net wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:46:04AM +0400, Кирилл wrote: Hello. After apm -z and wake by wol (re0) sometimes machine becomes very slow on network operations (even ssh!) Help, please.

Re: poor network performance after wake from suspend

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:46:04AM +0400, Кирилл wrote: Hello. After apm -z and wake by wol (re0) sometimes machine becomes very slow on network operations (even ssh!) Help, please. Here is dmesg and ifconfig: ... snip ... re0: watchdog timeout Do you see only one of these watchdog

Re: poor network performance after wake from suspend

22 octobre 2014 09:30 Mike Larkin mlar...@azathoth.net a écrit: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:46:04AM +0400, Кирилл wrote: Hello. After apm -z and wake by wol (re0) sometimes machine becomes very slow on network operations (even ssh!) Help, please. Here is dmesg and ifconfig: ... snip ...

Re: poor network performance after wake from suspend

On 2014 Oct 22 (Wed) at 08:31:29 + (+), Com??te wrote: :22 octobre 2014 09:30 Mike Larkin mlar...@azathoth.net a ??crit: : On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:46:04AM +0400, wrote: : : Hello. : After apm -z and wake by wol (re0) sometimes machine becomes very slow on : network

Re: poor network performance after wake from suspend

22 octobre 2014 10:40 Peter Hessler phess...@theapt.org a écrit: On 2014 Oct 22 (Wed) at 08:31:29 + (+), Com??te wrote: :22 octobre 2014 09:30 Mike Larkin mlar...@azathoth.net a ??crit: : On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:46:04AM +0400, wrote: : : Hello. : After apm -z and

poor network performance after wake from suspend

Hello. After apm -z and wake by wol (re0) sometimes machine becomes very slow on network operations (even ssh!) Help, please. Here is dmesg and ifconfig: OpenBSD 5.5 (GENERIC) #276: Wed Mar 5 09:57:06 MST 2014 dera...@i386.openbsd.org:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC cpu0: Intel(R)

Re: slow network performance with realtek 8111D

Hi. I tried what you said. Both recvspace and sendspace were set to 16384. I set both of them to 131070 and tried iperf again. It wasn't any faster. Thanks, Gabe On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 10:44 PM, jean-philippe luiggi j...@didconcept.com wrote: Hello, Please check the result of : #sysctl

slow network performance with realtek 8111D

Using iperf, I get around 300 mbits/s. between my openbsd machine and my windows xp machine and also to my imac with os x. I tried the kernel tweaks mentioned here: https://calomel.org/network_performance.html, but they did not help a whole lot (before tweaks I was getting around 220 mbits/s).

Re: poor network performance on gigabit link

Le Vendredi 26 Fivrier 2010 19:48:55, Christiano F. Haesbaert a icrit : Sorry but I'm dieing of curiosity, how the heck did you swap a n by a s in your subject ? I can't say. Thanks for the few answers, however I already tried such things as turning the net.inet.tcp.recvspace and

Re: network performance problems

Hi, I think you misunderstand me, I was not trying to argue that Cisco's firewall offerings are any better or worse than OpenBSD based solutions. I was merely pointing out that: - A _correctly_configured_ Cisco 6500/7600 SUP is not vulnerable to a few Mbps of multicast traffic as alleged by

Re: network performance problems

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 08:05:39PM +0100, Pete Vickers wrote: Hi, I think you misunderstand me, I was not trying to argue that Cisco's firewall offerings are any better or worse than OpenBSD based solutions. I was merely pointing out that: - A _correctly_configured_ Cisco 6500/7600 SUP

Re: network performance problems

On 17. feb. 2010, at 08.47, Claudio Jeker wrote: On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 03:35:24AM +0200, Kapetanakis Giannis wrote: On 17/02/10 03:16, FRLinux wrote: Mmmh, you picked my interest here. You mentioned your cisco 6500 but I guess you are going to use only gigabit NICs, so you have no need on

Re: network performance problems

I'm not an expert in this area, but it looks like OpenBSD can do some parts too and for much more lower price. DHCP snooping From info on Cisco page it looks like simple combination of lists/macros for blocking/allowing certain ports. Tables are possible with OpenBSD too and you can limit flow

Re: network performance problems

a lot of the features you list below are only useful or usable at the switching layer, and therefore not really fair when compared to what openbsd can do. eg, the dhcp snooping is done on the switches at the client access layer to prevent rouge dhcp servers on an l2 network. unless you put openbsd

Re: network performance problems

On 02/13/2010 04:44 PM, Kapetanakis Giannis wrote: I did a binary upgrade to latest snapshot and followed -current. I've seen huge improvement on server-client performance on the msk0 (internal side) but packet forwarding didn't change at all. 4.6-release: server max in: 300Mbps server max out:

Re: network performance problems

On 16/02/10 11:41, Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote: As Claudio has pointed you out, try (if you can) a better driver em(4) on good Intel hardware NICs. I use simple Supermicro hardware with Intel NIC PCI-E and em(4) an I move around 400/500MBps without any problem. Claudio was right. Upgrading

Re: network performance problems

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Kapetanakis Giannis bil...@edu.physics.uoc.gr wrote: perfectly ok for my test case. I'm pretty sure that with Intel network controllers the setup will rock and beat the hell out of my Cisco 6500 with the features of pf. Mmmh, you picked my interest here. You

Re: network performance problems

On 17/02/10 03:16, FRLinux wrote: Mmmh, you picked my interest here. You mentioned your cisco 6500 but I guess you are going to use only gigabit NICs, so you have no need on the 10gb range? Just asking, not trying to start a war :) Cheers, Steph :) Well not at them moment. 10G is a thought

Re: network performance problems

On 17/02/10 03:47, FRLinux wrote: Err, the backplane cost us about 10.000 euros for the card and 2500 euros per xenpack, and we have 4. So that sounds about right :) If future demands for more than 1G I will probably bond 1G cards (cheap solution) or buy a new L2 10G switch to do the link as

Re: network performance problems

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Kapetanakis Giannis bil...@edu.physics.uoc.gr wrote: b) 10G Xenpack for C6500 costs around $25K if I'm not wrong. Err, the backplane cost us about 10.000 euros for the card and 2500 euros per xenpack, and we have 4. So that sounds about right :) If future

Re: network performance problems

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Kapetanakis Giannis bil...@edu.physics.uoc.gr wrote: Did you put any openbsd in front/behind that Cisco? Bandwidth? packets/sec? What kind of server? I do, but it is used as a backup, so i am not looking for performance but rather as a slower replacement able to

Re: network performance problems

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 01:47:48AM +, FRLinux wrote: On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Kapetanakis Giannis bil...@edu.physics.uoc.gr wrote: b) 10G Xenpack for C6500 costs around $25K if I'm not wrong. Err, the backplane cost us about 10.000 euros for the card and 2500 euros per xenpack,

Re: network performance problems

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 03:35:24AM +0200, Kapetanakis Giannis wrote: On 17/02/10 03:16, FRLinux wrote: Mmmh, you picked my interest here. You mentioned your cisco 6500 but I guess you are going to use only gigabit NICs, so you have no need on the 10gb range? Just asking, not trying to start

Re: network performance problems

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 08:23:27PM +0200, Kapetanakis Giannis wrote: Hi, I'm not satisfied with the network performance on my OpenBSD firewall/router. CPU is Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6550 @ 2.33GHz / with 4G ram OpenBSD server 4.6 GENERIC.MP#89 i386 Update to current to get some msk

  1   2   >