> The specific command I ran was "iperf -i 1 -N -d -P3 -c 192.168.0.1" - > from the options on my Gentoo box, -d says it does a bidirectional test > simultaneously, testing (I presumed) duplex. >
ah yeah, it is full duplex with that option. I assumed you were doing nothing but a -c and -s. > > rl's are known for poor performance, but should be better than that > > unless you're only running a 100-200 MHz machine or so. > > I just barely miss that category... ;-) > CPU: AMD-K6(tm) 3D processor (300.68-MHz 586-class CPU) > hah Well...that's probably the best you can get on that. :) With rl NIC's at least, since they're interrupt happy. When you're testing throughput, can you try to run 'top' at the console or a SSH session? I'm curious what your CPU utilization will be. I had a rl NIC in a P3 600 FreeBSD box, and it could only do about 70 Mb to another host on my LAN. Put a Intel fxp in the same box, and it could do 100 Mb at wire speed. With an Intel gig 'em' card, the same box can do 400 Mb though a single NIC. Considering that when you're passing traffic, you can roughly cut that number in half, that P3 600 could have only done probably 35 Mb in a firewalling scenario with rl NIC's. Yes, they really are that bad. :) At 70 Mb with the rl, the P3 600 was pegged at 100% CPU, mostly from interrupts. A P3 600 is easily 2-3 times as fast as a K6 300, so those numbers don't look too out of wack. > rl0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>) > looks fine. I bet if you replace the rl NIC's with fxp's, you'll see a huge improvement in performance. -cmb --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
