From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 3 20:55:16 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB013669; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 20:55:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-x22d.google.com (mail-ve0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 885E5C4A; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 20:55:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id oy12so2098516veb.18 for ; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:55:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=JdSynC/ldzqDA39xlwY6fjDHiOS3aONJvt6gABRQleA=; b=enPkRVHZgbhuaN3++U/Vsh8BdcR+XZKxIMWRi5gtUmH7e2o4jDbyaTvssSlzA5cXK4 w+YBG9Cz6mLiIg+QnpA2LjsZo3LjyxJjOIdow9SE+5qYo5c4N9kteHdcSwVZmIKWu6WQ 8K/Ygmm+Gltvif7aq5DdlwcvVIvAqcSMjTdfqzBsBUqHHozpSp9lkzl53h+pBVFdGH3n h69FvylWFxp5fU5aQA5ChrOJPsfXN+n6C3qkyVKcKxeQj75TRvoajRReSN1rEatMeVMj cjPiblx8PSZE6oQ2g7AcV1o/Dr1dVCGhiw1JJO+HDFNa/lSplFFHZ/G3G1VQgmi7ZL9T sIOA== X-Received: by 10.220.250.203 with SMTP id mp11mr18781697vcb.2.1393880114469; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:55:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: cochard@gmail.com Received: by 10.58.188.35 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 12:54:54 -0800 (PST) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cochard=2DLabb=E9?= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:54:54 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: XkFI0EertvH62-zkxCUmMHyRu-w Message-ID: Subject: Strange network performance on Intel Rangeley (8 cores Atom) To: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 20:55:16 -0000 Hi all, I've got a new toy in my network bench lab: a SuperMicro SuperServer 5018A-FTN4. But I've got a problem for understanding and obtaining good throughput for "routing" or "firewalling" usages. I'm using only the embedded 4 gigabit ports of the Atom C2758 SoC. With the default igb(4) parameters which is to create 8 queues (because there is 8 cores) this server is not able to receive more than 585K packet-per-seconds into one port which is far from the gigabit line-rate (1.48Mpps): I was expecting better throughput with 8 cores. Then I did a bunch of new benchmarks by measuring the impact of number of queue and the results are here: http://bsdrp.net/documentation/examples/forwarding_performance_lab_of_a_superserver_5018a-ftn4#graph => I've got better results with only 4 queues than 8... but still low throughput with only 938Kpps. Then I decided to measure the impact of pf and ipfw on the throughput with 4 and 8 queues. And the results are annoying: http://bsdrp.net/documentation/examples/forwarding_performance_lab_of_a_superserver_5018a-ftn4#graph1 => With 8 queues, enabling pf or ipfw improve the input throughput of the igb(4) port. Why so low throughput with 8 queues ? Why better throughput with pf or ipfw enabled than without ? Thanks, Olivier