On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 09:59:53PM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> was pf(4) enabled while running those tests?
Yes.
> if pf(4) was enabled while those tests were running,
> what rules were loaded to to pf(4)?
Default pf.conf:
# $OpenBSD: pf.conf,v 1.55 2017/12/03 20:40:04 sthen Exp $
#
# See pf.conf(5) and /etc/examples/pf.conf
set skip on lo
block return # block stateless traffic
pass # establish keep-state
# By default, do not permit remote connections to X11
block return in on ! lo0 proto tcp to port 6000:6010
# Port build user does not need network
block return out log proto {tcp udp} user _pbuild
> my guess is pf(4) was not enabled when running those tests.
Linux iperf3 is sending 10 TCP streams in parallel over OpenBSD
forward machine. I see 22 iperf3 states on pf(4).
> if I remember
> correctly I could see performance boost by factor ~1.5 when running those
> tests
> with similar diff applied to machines provided by hrvoje@.
Multiqueue support for ix(4) has improved. Maybe that is why I see
factor 2 . Machine has 4 cores. The limit seems to be the 10Gig
interface, although we do not use it optimally.
> I agree it's time to commit such change.
cool
bluhm
