[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

CPU Utiliaztion on a ethernet bridge



I have setup a linux box with a 2.4.19 kernel. I am bridging 2 ethernet
devices together using 3Com PCI 3c982 Dual Port cards. (3c59x).

What I am seeing is that the module itself uses 30% of CPU to handle just
10mbit both ways (20mbit total). ~6000ps total. From what I have read on
the bridge homepages I should be able to run this on a 486 as CPU has
nothing to do with it. What am I doing wrong?


bridge:~# brctl show
bridge name     bridge id               STP enabled     interfaces
br0             8000.000475c9a6f9       yes             eth1
                                                        eth2


bridge:~# lsmod
Module                  Size  Used by    Not tainted
limiter                13064   0  (unused)
bridge                 16748   1
3c59x                  25512   2
sis900                 12388   1



bridge:~# cat /etc/modules
# /etc/modules: kernel modules to load at boot time.
#
# This file should contain the names of kernel modules that are
# to be loaded at boot time, one per line.  Comments begin with
# a #, and everything on the line after them are ignored.
sis900
3c59x options=4,4,4,4 full_duplex=1,1,1,1 max_interrupt_work=10000
bridge
limiter


in /etc/network/interfaces
auto eth1
iface eth1 inet loopback

auto eth2
iface eth2 inet loopback

# Bridge Interface for eth1 + eth2
auto br0
iface br0 inet loopback
        pre-up brctl addbr br0
        up brctl addif br0 eth1
        up brctl addif br0 eth2
        up brctl stp br0 on
        down brctl delif br0 eth1
        down brctl delif br0 eth2
        post-down brctl delbr br0





Does anyone have any ideas off the top of your head what could be
causing this or be able to point me in the right direction for some
documentation relating to this problem.





Simon Allard (Senior Tool Monkey)
IHUG
Ph (09) 358-5067   Email: simon.allard@staff.ihug.co.nz

I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....



Reply to: