network perf : em driver ?
R. B. Riddick
arne_woerner at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 12 08:07:22 PST 2007
--- Ivan Voras <ivoras at fer.hr> wrote:
> R. B. Riddick wrote:
> > We had that problem before: Some HTTP server implementations just dont
> > bring it... :-) thttpd is quite efficient, I have heard...
> This is a red herring. The OP reports he transfers a single file - http
> server performance cannot even approach to influence the performance in
> his case (and he's using apache!). There's absolutely no reason to
> replace apache here.
Soso... Those are words and no herrings (especially no red herrings); their
colour should be black in most cases...
As the "OP" (what is that exactly? again an animal?) mentioned: Apache performs
worse than scp. My memory tells me similar things... Remember: Apache is
optimized for LINUX not necessarily for FreeBSD... I am pretty sure, that I
could write an http server, that does not use more than 1% of a
Gigabit/connection... So there might be a very good reason to replace Apache
(2.2 or what it was) by something, that is smarter on FreeBSD (like scp with
http capability but without encryption)...
So we want to conclude, that I do not apply tricks or feints, and that I do not
have any reason to do so... I just reflect here, what I have learned... pro
bono publico hopefully...
> > You can try
> > 2. increase MTU (ifconfig em0 mtu 65536 or so; never tried that myself)
> Don't do that. His ifconfig output lists his card doesn't support jumbo
> frames, and most ethernet card's will wedge if you use MTU > 1500, let
> alone a nonstandard one as 65536.
> Even in 1999, standard 1500 byte frames could yield 400 Mbit/s
Oh OK... I wasnt aware that there are Gbit NICs, that cant do big mtu-s...
> > 3. ports/benchmarks/tcpblast
> I've found iperf to be more useful.
Soso... Was it slower? Or what?
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
More information about the freebsd-performance