From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932567AbWFVRKr (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:10:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751564AbWFVRKr (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:10:47 -0400 Received: from web33314.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.206.129]:21931 "HELO web33314.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751826AbWFVRKq (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:10:46 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Cjwh7doi8G4/WG+BeAAi5vISddEO8v1Vo6PvE8tB9l9uyAgI2UdAWb507FEP3appYxR1A+6ay5yQZeTHwUH8BoNaNP17dOfA5jxFOJZf/3buKkPqEvKNy9cQBW403qXiyLv4fMLCCbM8NLUR+oNmjWVmw9ThlTByd8OlF+PB0gU= ; Message-ID: <20060622171045.28489.qmail@web33314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:10:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Danial Thom Reply-To: danial_thom@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Dropping Packets in 2.6.17 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=20=22P=E1draig=22?= Brady Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <449AB69C.6090207@draigBrady.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --- Pádraig Brady wrote: > Danial Thom wrote: > > > > --- Pádraig Brady wrote: > > > >>For reference with 2.4.20 on a dual 3.4GHz > xeon > >>and 2 x e1000 cards, I was able to capture, > >>classify and do statistical calculations > >>on 625Kpps per interface (1.3 million pps). > > > > Unfortunately I can do that much with FreeBSD > 4.x > > with 1 2.0Ghz opteron, so its not a very > > compelling case to have to spend twice as > much on > > hardware to use LINUX. However 2.4 seemed > much > > better than 2.6 in this regard. 2.6 wants to > drop > > a lot more packets. The goal of using 2.6 is > to > > utilize DP better, but it obviously has to > > perform better than a UP Freebsd box. > > NC. > > > What ITR setting are using for the e1000 > driver? > > I didn't use ITR, I used NAPI. > If thats the case then your "system" would have the same problem that I'm encountering, since polling results in buckets of packets being dropped with heavy userland activity. Since you can control exactly how many interrupts are generated and how often, there should be no advantage to polling, unless LINUX interrupt processing is badly broken, which seems like a strong possibility. This should work quite naturally without having to use kludges like polling, enormous receive rings or memory cheating. DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com