Re: Bad network performance on apu2c4

2017-11-10 Thread Rupert Gallagher
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

2017-11-09 Thread Rupert Gallagher
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

2017-11-09 Thread Rupert Gallagher
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

2017-11-08 Thread Christer Solskogen
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

2017-11-05 Thread Peter Faiman
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

2017-11-04 Thread Peter Faiman
> 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

2017-11-04 Thread Chris Cappuccio
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

2017-11-04 Thread Stuart Henderson
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

2017-11-04 Thread Rupert Gallagher
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

2017-11-04 Thread miraculli .
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

2017-11-04 Thread Peter Faiman
> 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

2017-11-04 Thread Chris Cappuccio
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

2017-11-04 Thread Rupert Gallagher
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

2017-11-03 Thread Chris Cappuccio
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

2017-11-03 Thread Rupert Gallagher
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

2017-11-03 Thread Christer Solskogen
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

2017-11-02 Thread Stuart Henderson
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

2017-11-02 Thread Sterling Archer
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

2017-11-02 Thread Christer Solskogen
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

2017-11-02 Thread Stuart Henderson
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

2017-11-01 Thread Dimitris Papastamos
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

2017-11-01 Thread Christer Solskogen
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