Gigabit performance test

[Mike Tancsa]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 03:17:40 +0200 (CEST), in sentex.lists.freebsd.net
you wrote:

>
>dmesg: http://www.codeangels.com/misc/fwtest/first/fw_dmesg.txt
>pciconf: http://www.codeangels.com/misc/fwtest/first/fw_pciconf.txt
>sysctl: http://www.codeangels.com/misc/fwtest/first/fw_sysctl.txt
>kernel: http://www.codeangels.com/misc/fwtest/first/fw_kern.txt

Are you using amd64 or i386 kernel ? the config implies you are using
i386

>
>HZ and Pooling values in those config files have been changed by me during
>test several times as you will see in results table.
>The kernels have pf compiled in but it is not turned on at this time.
>
>The network topo is: http://www.codeangels.com/misc/fwtest/first/topo.gif
>And here are the results:
>http://www.codeangels.com/misc/fwtest/first/results.htm
>
>* Any other ideas on improving performance of this box?

I found 
kern.polling.idle_poll=1
to improve performance in polling.  Also, try updating the box to 6.2
first as there are quite a few improvements to the em driver

You can also fiddle with assigning less to userspace with 
kern.polling.user_frac=30
Don remember for sure, but ipfw seemed to be a bit faster that pf.
Also with no firewall loaded there seemed to be quite a bit more
throughput... However, that kind of defeats the purpose of a firewall.

Also, did you try without polling in the kernel ?  The way the updated
em driver works should negate the need for kernel polling as well.

Also if you dont use INET6 or ipsec, I would remove them from the
kernel

	---Mike
--------------------------------------------------------
Mike Tancsa, Sentex communications http://www.sentex.net
Providing Internet Access since 1994
mike at sentex.net, (http://www.tancsa.com)