Re: Speed Problems

New set of tests done with AMD64 UP kernel. http://www.layer17.net/openbsd-router-intro.html /Tony

Re: Speed Problems

Tony Sarendal wrote: On 10/3/07, *Daniel Ouellet* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Claudio Jeker wrote: > Could you add the dmesg of the test box to the website? > Do you have any other network cards you could test? (I'm mostly interested > in bnx

Re: Speed Problems

On 10/3/07, Daniel Ouellet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Claudio Jeker wrote: > > Could you add the dmesg of the test box to the website? > > Do you have any other network cards you could test? (I'm mostly > interested > > in bnx but sk, msk, bge and nfe could be interesting as well). > > This box

Re: Speed Problems

Claudio Jeker wrote: Could you add the dmesg of the test box to the website? Do you have any other network cards you could test? (I'm mostly interested in bnx but sk, msk, bge and nfe could be interesting as well). This box if the M2 version also come with nfe cards as well, but there is issue

Re: Speed Problems

On 10/3/07, Claudio Jeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 08:46:43PM +0100, Tony Sarendal wrote: > > On 9/27/07, Tony Sarendal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 9/27/07, Claudio Jeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... > > > > > I hooked up the X4100 to one of our tes

Re: Speed Problems

On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 08:46:43PM +0100, Tony Sarendal wrote: > On 9/27/07, Tony Sarendal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 9/27/07, Claudio Jeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > > I hooked up the X4100 to one of our testers and ran some basic tests just to > get > familiar with the tester

Re: Speed Problems

On 9/27/07, Tony Sarendal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/27/07, Claudio Jeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 09:54:00AM +0100, Tony Sarendal wrote: > > > On 9/27/07, Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > * Tony Sarendal < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-0

Re: Speed Problems Part 2

I decided to pump up maxlen to 8192 to see what would happen and I thought it actually has stopped the drops. Unfortunately I was under the impression they had stopped when I believe this was causing the count to not increase: WARNING: mclpool limit reached; increase kern.maxclusters I've pumped

Re: Speed Problems Part 2

On 9/26/07, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2007/09/26 13:50, rezidue wrote: > > > > >Order a 4.2 CD and install it as soon as you get it. 4.2 removed > many > > >bottlenecks in the network stack. In the meanwhile check out for > the ip > > >ifq len: > > ># sysctl

Re: Speed Problems

On 9/27/07, Claudio Jeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 09:54:00AM +0100, Tony Sarendal wrote: > > On 9/27/07, Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > * Tony Sarendal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-27 10:36]: > > > > On 9/26/07, Tom Bombadil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Speed Problems

On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 09:54:00AM +0100, Tony Sarendal wrote: > On 9/27/07, Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > * Tony Sarendal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-27 10:36]: > > > On 9/26/07, Tom Bombadil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen defines how many packets

Re: Speed Problems

On 9/27/07, Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Tony Sarendal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-27 10:59]: > > I meant if the input queue length was per physical or logical interface. > > neither. there is one per protocol. i. e. typically two (inet and > inet6). Very good. My preconfigure

Re: Speed Problems

* Tony Sarendal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-27 10:59]: > I meant if the input queue length was per physical or logical interface. neither. there is one per protocol. i. e. typically two (inet and inet6). -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Fu

Re: Speed Problems

On 9/27/07, Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Tony Sarendal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-27 10:36]: > > On 9/26/07, Tom Bombadil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen defines how many packets can be queued in the > IP > > > > input queue before further packets are

Re: Speed Problems

* Tony Sarendal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-27 10:36]: > On 9/26/07, Tom Bombadil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen defines how many packets can be queued in the IP > > > input queue before further packets are dropped. Packets comming from the > > > network card are first put

Re: Speed Problems

On 9/26/07, Tom Bombadil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen defines how many packets can be queued in the IP > > input queue before further packets are dropped. Packets comming from the > > network card are first put into this queue and the actuall IP packet > > processing is d

Re: Speed Problems Part 2

On 2007/09/26 13:50, rezidue wrote: > > >Order a 4.2 CD and install it as soon as you get it. 4.2 removed many > >bottlenecks in the network stack. In the meanwhile check out for the ip > >ifq len: > ># sysctl net.inet.ip.ifq > >net.inet.ip.ifq.len=0 > >net.inet.ip.ifq.maxl

Re: Speed Problems Part 2

rezidue wrote: > kern.version=OpenBSD 4.0-stable (GENERIC.MP) #0: Thu Mar 15 07:28:19 CST Just for the hell of it, try running GENERIC, instead of GENERIC.MP. --Toby.

Speed Problems Part 2

For some reason I can't seem to reply to the earlier responses. Hopefully this gets through. On 9/26/07, Bryan Irvine < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >What have you looked at? are you running pf? what kind of ruleset? > Tried simplifying it? > >--Bryan I wasn't running pf originally when

Re: Speed Problems

Hopefully this makes it through , I've been trying to post comments all day but they don't seem to make it here. To Bryan, I wasn't running pf originally when I noticed this problem but I am now just to block ssh from the outside. I've disabled and re-enabled pf to see if it affects throughput an

Re: Speed Problems

> net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen defines how many packets can be queued in the IP > input queue before further packets are dropped. Packets comming from the > network card are first put into this queue and the actuall IP packet > processing is done later. Gigabit cards with interrupt mitigation may spit >

Re: Speed Problems

On 2007/09/26 10:48, Tom Bombadil wrote: > What does 'net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen=256' do for us? try http://archive.openbsd.nu/?ml=openbsd-tech&a=2006-10&t=2474666

Re: Speed Problems

On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 10:48:02AM -0700, Tom Bombadil wrote: > Hi Claudio... > > What does 'net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen=256' do for us? > > Tried a few 'man', and a few google searches and I wasn't very > successful. Found tons of other posts telling ppl to bump up that > sysctl, but never found what

Re: Speed Problems

Hi Claudio... What does 'net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen=256' do for us? Tried a few 'man', and a few google searches and I wasn't very successful. Found tons of other posts telling ppl to bump up that sysctl, but never found what it does exactly. Cheers, g.

Re: Speed Problems

On 2007/09/25 23:57, rezidue wrote: > I've been having problems with throughput on a box I'm using as an edge > gateway. dmesg and vmstat -i might give clues. Also try bsd.mp if you use bsd (or vice-versa), and Claudio's suggestion of 4.2 is a good one.

Re: Speed Problems

On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 11:57:37PM -0500, rezidue wrote: > I've been having problems with throughput on a box I'm using as an edge > gateway. I can't seem to get it to push out more than 150Mb/sec at about > 20k pps. It's a Tyan Thunder K8SR (S2881) board that has two gig broadcom > interfaces on

Re: Speed Problems

What have you looked at? are you running pf? what kind of ruleset? Tried simplifying it? --Bryan On 9/25/07, rezidue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been having problems with throughput on a box I'm using as an edge > gateway. I can't seem to get it to push out more than 150Mb/sec at about > 2

Speed Problems

I've been having problems with throughput on a box I'm using as an edge gateway. I can't seem to get it to push out more than 150Mb/sec at about 20k pps. It's a Tyan Thunder K8SR (S2881) board that has two gig broadcom interfaces on a shared pci-x bus. It's on the bcm5704c chipset and I'm runnin

Re: vr(4) speed problems

On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 09:39:56AM +0200, Paul Irofti wrote: > I'll send a new dmesg and notify if anything has changed when I get > back. Got back, it was the graphics card not the mobo, but I did ask him to test my NIC too and he said it ran just fine (of course I asked for a specific duplex tes

Re: vr(4) speed problems

On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 09:59:49PM -0500, Nick Holland wrote: > First of all, regarding your dmesg: that's a feature, not a bug. The > system attempts to store multiple dmesgs in RAM and keep them after a > reboot. This can be very handy at times, but disconcerting to those > not expecting it. T

Re: vr(4) speed problems

Paul Irofti wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:00:07PM +0200, Paul Irofti wrote: >> Strange, the dmesg I submitted (and the one dmesg shows:) both point to >> my configuration before the snapshot update. But the login informs me >> that I'm running ``OpenBSD 4.1-beta (GENERIC) #847'' and uname say

Re: vr(4) speed problems

On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:00:07PM +0200, Paul Irofti wrote: > Strange, the dmesg I submitted (and the one dmesg shows:) both point to > my configuration before the snapshot update. But the login informs me > that I'm running ``OpenBSD 4.1-beta (GENERIC) #847'' and uname says the > same: > > $ una

vr(4) speed problems

I've received a new mobo with a vr(4) NIC. Ever since I installed it I'm getting very slow transfer speeds (i.e. from 7-8 mb/s to 0.3-0.4 mb/s). I've googled and stfa and found some complaints on the freebsd mailing lists but wasn't able to find a solution. Is this a known bug? Should I just buy an

Re: vr(4) speed problems

Strange, the dmesg I submitted (and the one dmesg shows:) both point to my configuration before the snapshot update. But the login informs me that I'm running ``OpenBSD 4.1-beta (GENERIC) #847'' and uname says the same: $ uname -rsv OpenBSD 4.1 GENERIC#847