[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Steve Thomas" <sthomas at consultant dot com>
 To:  "Craig FALCONER" <cfalconer at avonside dot school dot nz>, m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] Hardware suggestion
 Date:  Fri, 09 Feb 2007 01:19:44 -0500
The context of the polling question was related to possibly
improving the throughput of the Soekris 4801 by enabling
polling to offset the throughput penalty of it's IRQ design.
Really a driver bug that only manifests on shared NIC IRQs.

I don't have a 4801 to test if polling makes any difference.

>> Turning on polling increased the machine's load to a noticeable level.

CPU load is not the same thing as bits/sec throughput.

A CPU load increase that gets you more bits/sec throughput
is a good thing (provided you still have enough CPU  for
heavy loads).

If you are starting with only a P166 then the added CPU load
would not likely help the throughput. That wasn't the question
though. We are talking about a 4801 (faster CPU).


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Craig FALCONER"
  To: "'Steve Thomas'" , m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
  Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] Hardware suggestion
  Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:03:08 +1300


  Beg to differ - I have a nokia IP330 with a P166 CPU.

  Turning on polling increased the machine's load to a noticeable
  level.

  So its really "YMMV" but slower CPUs may not benefit from that.


  -----Original Message-----
  From: Steve Thomas [mailto:sthomas at consultant dot com]
  Sent: Friday, 9 February 2007 9:58 a.m.
  To: Lonnie Abelbeck; m0n0wall List
  Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Hardware suggestion


  Good thought, I don't really know. AFAIK, turning on polling
  generally
  improves performanceover having it turned off.


  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  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