I've tried both polling and without pre 1.3b. CPU shows a few percent 
more usage without polling but not over 5-10% (pushing over 90Mb/s).

I have polling on right now too.

If FreeBSD 6+ uses so much more of the CPU I guess it's better to use 
1.22 if you have a fast Internet connection and a rather slow firewall box.

If I replace the box with lets say a Pentium 4 3GHz. Would it be enough 
to handle the throughput of a 100Mbit connection?

/ Dennis


Chris Buechler wrote:
> On 12/23/06, Dennis Karlsson <dennis at denniskarlsson dot com> wrote:
>> Well I wrote 5-6MB/s (megabytes per second)
>>
> 
> Oh!  Well, the big B vs. small b makes a huge difference.  :)  Sorry,
> misread your message.
> 
> That's about 50 Mbps, which is about as much as I'd expect to get
> through that spec of a box with BitTorrent.  That's probably roughly
> 10K pps.  I would expect with something that doesn't use so many
> connections, like FTP or HTTP, that you could probably push more than
> that through.  This seems normal to me.
> 
> 
>> I have had no troubles before to push over 9 MB/s through this box. And
>> with almost no indication on the CPU meter.
>>
> 
> Did you have polling enabled previously?  If so, that causes
> misleading CPU readings on previous versions (it'll show virtually
> nothing even when the box is pegged).  If not, I'd be surprised if you
> got 9 MB/s through a PIII box without causing significant CPU usage.
> Going from 9 MB/s down to 6 MB/s is about what I'd expect from this
> scenario.
> 
> 
>> Strange thing is that nothing uses the CPU on top;
>>
> 
> The top output on m0n0wall doesn't show interrupt time, which I'm sure
> is what is taking it up at that kind of network throughput.  You can
> enable polling on the Advanced page, and that might improve things a
> bit.
> 
> -Chris
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch