[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Chris Buechler <cbuechler at gmail dot com>
 To:  jesse at wingnet dot net
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] RE: poor performance!
 Date:  Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:31:28 -0500
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:54:45 -0500, Jesse Guardiani <jesse at wingnet dot net> wrote:
> I don't think PCI cards come with such a utility. I know the
> old ISA cards did, but I think most PCI hardware IRQ settings
> are done in BIOS now. It took some work, but I finally got
> my motherboard to force a different set of IRQs. Things do
> seem a bit more responsive now. Thanks!

That's correct, for the fxp and xl cards you have, there isn't any
utility.  That old 3Com card you have in there does have such a
utility, but doesn't sound that that's coming into play here at all. 
You're correct, all the PCI stuff should be handled by the BIOS.  Kind
of odd that both the PCI cards are being assigned the same IRQ.  That
shouldn't happen unless you have a bunch of other cards in there and
they need to share IRQ's.

You should set "plug and play OS" in the BIOS to "no" or "disabled". 
That might work out better than whatever you did to get it on a
different IP, if it isn't already set that way.

That box should be enough to push at least 10-15 times as much
bandwidth as you have without breaking a sweat.  Definitely shouldn't
have any hardware bottlenecks there.  I have 486's with m0n0wall
pushing way more traffic than that.

Still not sure if what you reported is a problem though.  You said 26
KB outbound (or was it Kb?).  26 KB on a 256 Kb uplink is about as
good as you're going to get.  Unless I'm misunderstanding how you're
testing this, or mistaking bits and bytes in what you mentioned.