Intel DN2800mt x64 2.0.3-2.1 bandwidth
-
That is really too nice a rig for a home play toy…
I just picked up a HP V1910-24G 24 port for $30 and I was jumping with joy...
I'm easily happy...
I found mine on a ebay ad from someone "junking a old business" HAHHAAHAH.. 100 bux shipped. I snatched with the quickness. Of course overkill is always nice.
nope, fresh installation no packages
-
im gonna try reinstalling, not that it would make a difference, perhaps something got screwed up. be back in a few.
-
I found two references to check…
1. reviewing you dmesg output that you have no other device using one of the nic's irqs
2. Try with system > advanced > polling on.
Might as well try before a reinstall....
-
how would I go about checking irq
in bios I have everything extra disabled.
-
ok weird thing, reinstalled cpu0 is showing idle 24% and 11% under load. while cpu1 is sitting 88.77%idle.
could it be misrepresenting cpu idle state after updates? poll is enabled.. sitting 100% idle, or is it the Polling eating cpu? I get same throughput.
also going over dmesg list, Looks like my nic uses irq 17 and 18. 18 is also shared with USB controller.. Let me try disabling all usb no terminal
Just tried changing tool to iperf and netted 193Mbit and 191Mbit on default test. this isn't right. I can't for the life of me figure out why it doesn't saturate cpu or nic. just a little more information. when I run iperf or tamosoft tools, I can still pull 55Mb from my isp. the cpu gets further away from idle when I do. so I dont' know anymore. time for sleep.
-
Are you running 'top -SH' to show all system processes etc?
If you try polling, it's not recommended, make sure it correctly stops polling when you disable it again. I found it sometimes gets 'stuck'. Reboot.
You could try enabling IP fast forwarding in System: Advanced: System Tunables: That usually speeds things up when routing but breaks IPSec so no good if you need that.
Steve
-
Do you have hardware flow control enabled on all the links?
What is the size of the data blocks sent over the wire in your tests? What TCP window sizes are you using? How many concurrent connections are you running?
-
Do you have hardware flow control enabled on all the links?
What is the size of the data blocks sent over the wire in your tests? What TCP window sizes are you using? How many concurrent connections are you running?
iperf's default size 8, MTU 1500. just one connection
There is another pfsense box on the network, configured seperate vlan. I dont think that has anything to do with it though. it passes dhcp and dns to wan side. which iperf server is on that side of the vlan/wan depending if your left handed or right.
vlan side of subject pf, is direct to pc. Flow control is enabled on rx/tx
-
Are you running 'top -SH' to show all system processes etc?
If you try polling, it's not recommended, make sure it correctly stops polling when you disable it again. I found it sometimes gets 'stuck'. Reboot.
You could try enabling IP fast forwarding in System: Advanced: System Tunables: That usually speeds things up when routing but breaks IPSec so no good if you need that.
Steve
yup, i got stuck and had to reboot last night. I'll try the fast forwarding
-
Yeah - I'd read that sometimes polling doesn't work well, but I also figured it can't hurt to try if you are about to wipe and reinstall.
Still didn't get near full network speed huh? -
Yeah - I'd read that sometimes polling doesn't work well, but I also figured it can't hurt to try if you are about to wipe and reinstall.
I definitely do NOT recommend to touch polling unless you have quick physical access to the box. It can be so bad that reverting is troublesome even with serial console.
-
You did read that he was about to reinstall right?
-
Yep, device polling can end up switching so many cpu cycles to polling the NICs that the webgui slows to a crawl or even becomes unusable.
Here's some discussion of IP fastforwarding: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,57723.0.html
Does the pfSense box you're testing use VLANs directly? This could be a hardware off loading limitation.
Steve
-
haha… Its as if people would think thats my first button I'd switch.
I figure if you are about to wipe the box, may as well try everything first.
What I have gotten so far is "Device polling needs to be removed from the GUI as an option because it only breaks things worse". -
What I have gotten so far is "Device polling needs to be removed from the GUI as an option because it only breaks things worse".
Yeah, good idea…
-
I'm feeling a little defensive right now.
I'm going off to the corner to cry a while and drink coffee :P -
Beer@kejianshi:
I'm going off to the corner to cry a while and drink coffee :P
Beer >> coffee :P
P.S. Started a new thread on the device polling "feature".
-
Its a little early for me in the day to start swilling beer. I'm waiting till noon for that.
I have been wondering this for a long while but never have gotten a clear answer.
Does / can a HDD slow down the throughput of a build like this?
Is there an advantage in throughput for SDD over HDD (not talking about caching or swapping)? -
tried forwarding, gain minimal bandwidth. 32Mb exact. so now were near 352Mbish.. still way below capability
-
ive read on this forum in some post where a guy LOVES pfsense, but tried microtek. and performed 800 something on his board. I'm gonna try that real quick and see if its capable of routing on a different distro.
