Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:35:06 +0300 From: Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> To: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> Cc: FreeBSD stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ix(intel) vs mlxen(mellanox) 10Gb performance Message-ID: <197995E2-0C11-43A2-AB30-FBB0FB8CE2C5@cs.huji.ac.il> In-Reply-To: <20150817094145.GB3158@zxy.spb.ru> References: <1D52028A-B39F-4F9B-BD38-CB1D73BF5D56@cs.huji.ac.il> <20150817094145.GB3158@zxy.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Aug 17, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:27:41AM +0300, Daniel Braniss wrote: > >> hi, >> I have a host (Dell R730) with both cards, connected to an HP8200 switch at 10Gb. >> when writing to the same storage (netapp) this is what I get: >> ix0: ~130MGB/s >> mlxen0 ~330MGB/s >> this is via nfs/tcpv3 >> >> I can get similar (bad) performance with the mellanox if I increase the file size >> to 512MGB. > > Look like mellanox have internal beffer for caching and do ACK acclerating. what ever they are doing, it’s impressive :-) > >> so at face value, it seems the mlxen does a better use of resources than the intel. >> Any ideas how to improve ix/intel's performance? > > Are you sure about netapp performance? yes, and why should it act differently if the request is coming from the same host? in any case the numbers are quiet consistent since I have measured it from several hosts, and at different times. danny
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?197995E2-0C11-43A2-AB30-FBB0FB8CE2C5>