The answer, Boris, is that the "team" has no idea what
they're doing. Check out some of the threads on
performance testing. They tune little pieces here
and there, and break 10 other things in the process.
Matt Dillon "determined" that 10,000 ints/second
was "optimal". Of course if you're passing 10Kpps
that means you get an interrupt for every
They're playing pin the tail on the donkey.
> traffic [/ref]
> run [/ref]
> tuning [/ref]
> > I am sorry, I mean 200Mb/s. It is a controlled[/ref]
> Unfortunately that's a not so uncommon result with
> em and 5.3. There are
> tuning methods but they won't give the big kick.
> Like mentioned, try 5.4 (BETA1), depending on your
> employment you'll see
> tremendous improvement, I don't have values handy
> nor can I confirm that for
> amd64, but you really wnat to try out, especially if
> this box isn't
> productive yet, which it isn't if I understood
I am running 5.4-Pre now. Its the same. Everyone
always say try new version, but it always the same.
i compare em to em, only difference is amd64 vs
i386. So amd64 O/S is this much slower than i386?
So why anyone use? Is like nobody know what is
going on with this OS. Before, people tell me
Opteron on i386 no good. But now that I test,
its much better than amd64. Why is there always
excuse with FreeBSD 5? Always try next version.
Always same slow result?
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to