From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Wed Aug 17 09:00:27 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD467BBAC56 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:00:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ben.rubson@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wm0-x241.google.com (mail-wm0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BCD01623 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:00:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ben.rubson@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wm0-x241.google.com with SMTP id i138so21692694wmf.3 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 02:00:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=4pewTKO6MJKaPLu+gmfkfK52y6i/d8vPjrUmYt4jcGI=; b=p5RMdQWwzAsgIfC0iHuFanZW4ItsTsOUJTOLZHkc1vK/jgQTl2+HoXvGqcbFOxefCy ayI9XJpFcGe5U2CWca9AIKwVvpx0f2vR4WjiOJ+a5u6x9iJXRdKYNnU9MzE8DY9S9a+d y0GaepMe/zkUbevTdPQP/+D30pfxmcwo4jED09GUYjm3zb+P5+Jnv++Fs7hwV69/PIUS ywbXB4yEgSLoZMMAl9rKW74PfMX5NfvzJv9lXMVayOcaUCpUY5ggxknvttOBNcxNgIe7 403Qfd6xlXBns8LJkOd39bvjwMva5adsRZ38nFo4HLQxkGyRGYpinvjkDtPKTWjuq+mN cHVQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=4pewTKO6MJKaPLu+gmfkfK52y6i/d8vPjrUmYt4jcGI=; b=LyWkjpxO+XF1MXy616oDmoDvTWZImD2eQVpxlHcow/mpU15BDcMPT4pNMjbg3yKdVO 2/qWHQmZ8BOb40GxTmxDaTVyHbBIsOE1/cLmRYtZ6QFkZ3LLd0X0JrT8qoUEn2TG/aUd QtDc1Few3/QfARVOfa9qIarE9rZRaL+lJwA5IUN/eK22T3HDaAVOGEvvrJy6wJKvhRUk bztUqXsziRBcUf51peZsrwsDmXN7FrCneHBTgL4WRM4uycZx/KA3MwVDvXFqrulxXwlu +NQPNRPIp8DgAcDW/qD3qrOopktfsPVPxAJhyXKg3fE+Lrh4Qt2sO4Kg/yGs0vJH5Ap8 20yg== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvc25cMPjp6ZSHkEdteejVwTuVxZLqoUsRyTd46PFpZLRH8sLdGQPvRacqlyJ1lOQ== X-Received: by 10.28.174.11 with SMTP id x11mr26479382wme.41.1471424425292; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 02:00:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.6] ([80.12.35.168]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x133sm25622833wmf.16.2016.08.17.02.00.23 for (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Aug 2016 02:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: Unstable local network throughput From: Ben RUBSON In-Reply-To: <91AEB1BD-44EA-43AD-A9A1-6DEBF367DF9B@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:00:21 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <3C0D892F-2BE8-4650-B9FC-93C8EE0443E1@gmail.com> <3B164B7B-CBFB-4518-B57D-A96EABB71647@gmail.com> <5D6DF8EA-D9AA-4617-8561-2D7E22A738C3@gmail.com> <7DD30CE7-32E6-4D26-91D4-C1D4F2319655@gmail.com> <91AEB1BD-44EA-43AD-A9A1-6DEBF367DF9B@gmail.com> To: FreeBSD Net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:00:28 -0000 > On 15 Aug 2016, at 16:49, Ben RUBSON wrote: >=20 >> On 12 Aug 2016, at 00:52, Adrian Chadd = 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 > http://pastebin.com/raw/YE0PxEu8 >=20 > 10) default kernel (no NUMA option) > + cpuset -l <12-23> > + cpuset -l <12-23> -x > http://pastebin.com/raw/RPh8aM49 >=20 >=20 >=20 > 11) No pinning, default kernel (no NUMA option), NUMA BIOS disabled > http://pastebin.com/raw/LyGcLKDd