Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:00:21 +0200 From: Ben RUBSON <ben.rubson@gmail.com> To: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Unstable local network throughput Message-ID: <EB650D09-5AAC-4425-9687-ED6BBCF63ED1@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <91AEB1BD-44EA-43AD-A9A1-6DEBF367DF9B@gmail.com> References: <3C0D892F-2BE8-4650-B9FC-93C8EE0443E1@gmail.com> <bed13ae3-0b8f-b1af-7418-7bf1b9fc74bc@selasky.org> <3B164B7B-CBFB-4518-B57D-A96EABB71647@gmail.com> <5D6DF8EA-D9AA-4617-8561-2D7E22A738C3@gmail.com> <BD0B68D1-CDCD-4E09-AF22-34318B6CEAA7@gmail.com> <CAJ-VmomW0Wth-uQU-OPTfRAsXW1kTDy-VyO2w-pgNosb-N1o=Q@mail.gmail.com> <B4D77A84-8F02-43E7-AD65-5B92423FC344@gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmo=Mfcvd41gtrt8GJfEtP-DQFfXt7pZ8eRLQzu73M=sX4A@mail.gmail.com> <7DD30CE7-32E6-4D26-91D4-C1D4F2319655@gmail.com> <CAJ-VmongwvbY3QqKBV%2BFJCHOfSdr-=v9CmLH1z=Tqwz19AtUpg@mail.gmail.com> <AF923C63-2414-4DCE-9FD9-CAE02E3AC8CE@gmail.com> <CAJ-VmonL8kVs3=BBg02cbzXA9NpAh-trdCBh4qkjw29dOCau-g@mail.gmail.com> <91AEB1BD-44EA-43AD-A9A1-6DEBF367DF9B@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 15 Aug 2016, at 16:49, Ben RUBSON <ben.rubson@gmail.com> wrote: >=20 >> On 12 Aug 2016, at 00:52, Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> = wrote: >>=20 >> Which ones of these hit the line rate comfortably? >=20 > So Adrian, I ran tests again using FreeBSD 11-RC1. > I put iperf throughput in result files (so that we can classify them), = as well as top -P ALL and pcm-memory.x. > iperf results : columns 3&4 are for srv1->srv2, columns 5&6 are for = srv2->srv1 (both flows running at the same time). >=20 >=20 >=20 > Results, expected throughput (best first) : > 11, 01, 05, 07, 06 >=20 > Results, bad (best first) : > 04, 02, 09, 03 >=20 > Results, worst (best first) : > 10, 08 >=20 >=20 >=20 > 00) Idle system > http://pastebin.com/raw/K1iMVHVF And strangely enough, from one server reboot to another, results are not = the same. They can be excellent, as 01), and they can be dramatically bad, as 01b) = : > 01) No pinning > http://pastebin.com/raw/7J3HibX0 01b) http://pastebin.com/raw/HbSPjigZ (-36GB/s) I kept this "bad boot" state and performed the other tests (with = lock_profiling stats for 10 seconds) : > 02) numactl -l fixed-domain-rr -m 0 -c 0 > http://pastebin.com/raw/Yt7yYr0K 02b) http://pastebin.com/raw/n7aZF7ad (+16GB/s) > 03) numactl -l fixed-domain-rr -m 0 -c 0 > + cpuset -l <0-11> -x <IRQ> > http://pastebin.com/raw/1FAgDUSU 03b) http://pastebin.com/raw/QHbauimp (+24GB/s) > 04) numactl -l fixed-domain-rr -m 0 -c 0 > + cpuset -l <12-23> -x <IRQ> > http://pastebin.com/raw/fTAxrzBb 04b) http://pastebin.com/raw/7gJFZdqB (+10GB/s) > 05) numactl -l fixed-domain-rr -m 1 -c 1 > http://pastebin.com/raw/kuAHzKu2 05b) http://pastebin.com/raw/TwhHGKNa (-36GB/s) > 06) numactl -l fixed-domain-rr -m 1 -c 1 > + cpuset -l <0-11> -x <IRQ> > http://pastebin.com/raw/tgtaZgwb 06b) http://pastebin.com/raw/zSZ7r09Y (-36GB/s) > 07) numactl -l fixed-domain-rr -m 1 -c 1 > + cpuset -l <12-23> -x <IRQ> > http://pastebin.com/raw/16ReuGFF 07b) http://pastebin.com/raw/qCsaGBVn (-36GB/s) These results are very strange, as if NUMA domains were "inverted"... dmesg : http://pastebin.com/raw/i5USqLix If I'm lucky enough, after several reboots, I can produce same = performance results as in test 01). dmesg : http://pastebin.com/raw/VvfQv6TM 01c) http://pastebin.com/raw/BVxgSyBN > 08) No pinning, default kernel (no NUMA option) > http://pastebin.com/raw/Ah74fKRx >=20 > 09) default kernel (no NUMA option) > + cpuset -l <0-11> > + cpuset -l <0-11> -x <IRQ> > http://pastebin.com/raw/YE0PxEu8 >=20 > 10) default kernel (no NUMA option) > + cpuset -l <12-23> > + cpuset -l <12-23> -x <IRQ> > http://pastebin.com/raw/RPh8aM49 >=20 >=20 >=20 > 11) No pinning, default kernel (no NUMA option), NUMA BIOS disabled > http://pastebin.com/raw/LyGcLKDd
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?EB650D09-5AAC-4425-9687-ED6BBCF63ED1>