Hello again :)
With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when
copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it normal?
FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Sat Sep 6 01:52:12 CEST 2008
fxp0: <Intel 82801DB (ICH4) Pro/100 Ethernet> port 0xc800-0xc83f mem
0xe1021000-0xe1021fff irq 20 at device 8.0 on pci1
# ifconfig fxp0
fxp0: flags=9843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,LINK0,MULTICAST>
metric 0 mtu 1500
options=8<VLAN_MTU>
ether 00:20:ed:42:87:13
inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>)
status: active
BTW overall SAMBA performance still sucks on 7.1-pre as much as on
RELENG_5 ...:( - 7.5 MB/s peak.
--
Bartosz Stec
On Friday 03 October 2008, Bartosz Stec wrote:> Hello again :) > > With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when > copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it normal?Yes. You don't want to use polling unless you set kern.hz to 10000 or something in that range. If you have a NIC with interrupt moderation, polling should almost never be necessary. Note that polling can still be useful for routers, because it allows you to have a much more responsive system even when handling heavy network traffic. -- Pieter de Goeje
* Bartosz Stec <admin@kkip.pl> [081003 07:23] wrote:> Hello again :) > > With POLLING enabled I experience about 10%-25% performance drop when > copying files over network. Tested with both SAMBA and NFS. Is it normal? > > FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Sat Sep 6 01:52:12 CEST 2008 > fxp0: <Intel 82801DB (ICH4) Pro/100 Ethernet> port 0xc800-0xc83f mem > 0xe1021000-0xe1021fff irq 20 at device 8.0 on pci1 > > # ifconfig fxp0 > fxp0: flags=9843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,LINK0,MULTICAST> > metric 0 mtu 1500 > options=8<VLAN_MTU> > ether 00:20:ed:42:87:13 > inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 > media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>) > status: active > > BTW overall SAMBA performance still sucks on 7.1-pre as much as on > RELENG_5 ...:( - 7.5 MB/s peak.7.5MB is 75% effeciency of a 100mbit card. Not amazing, but not "sucks". Where do you see faster performance? Between windows machines on the same hardware or linux server? -- - Alfred Perlstein
Clifton Royston wrote:> On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 10:29:35AM +0300, Andrei Kolu wrote: > ... > >> I remember when on FreeBSD 4.x I was able to copy files from samba and >> to samba up to 12MB/s on 100Mbit lan. >> > > This part seems unlikely, particularly as bit rates are measured in > decimal millions not computer millions. > > 12*8*1024*1024 = 100,663,296 so that would mean not merely zero but > negative packet and network overhead. > > -- Clifton >OK, I am reading right now description for Trendnet Mini-GBIC Features: -------------------------------------------------------------------- (TEG-MGBSX, TEG-MGBS10, TEW-MGBS40, TEW-MGBS80) Compliant with IEEE 802.3z Gigabit Ethernet and Fiber Channel Standards Industry standard SFP package Duplex LC connector 1.0625Gbps Fiber Channel Compliant 1.25Gbps Gigabit Ethernet Compliant -------------------------------------------------------------------- So, I guess that 100Mbit and 1000Mbit is not set in stone and you can actually achieve higher speeds than "standard". BTW: 1 megabit = 106 = 1,000,000 bits which is equal to 125,000 bytes. 100 megabit = 12,500,000 bytes = 12,5MB Or I am wrong?