From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Mon Aug 17 16:01:49 2015 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 C4EE59BB506; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:01:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F4C1104D; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:01:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.84 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRMr3-0003cS-JL; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:01:45 +0300 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:01:45 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Alban Hertroys Cc: FreeBSD Net , FreeBSD stable Subject: Re: ix(intel) vs mlxen(mellanox) 10Gb performance Message-ID: <20150817160145.GE3158@zxy.spb.ru> References: <1D52028A-B39F-4F9B-BD38-CB1D73BF5D56@cs.huji.ac.il> <20150817094145.GB3158@zxy.spb.ru> <197995E2-0C11-43A2-AB30-FBB0FB8CE2C5@cs.huji.ac.il> <20150817113923.GK1872@zxy.spb.ru> <20150817115405.GL1872@zxy.spb.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:01:49 -0000 On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 05:44:37PM +0200, Alban Hertroys wrote: > On 17 August 2015 at 13:54, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 01:49:27PM +0200, Alban Hertroys wrote: > > > >> On 17 August 2015 at 13:39, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > >> > >> > In any case, for 10Gb expect about 1200MGB/s. > >> > >> Your usage of units is confusing. Above you claim you expect 1200 > > > > I am use as topic starter and expect MeGaBytes per second > > That's a highly unusual way of writing MB/s. I am know. This is do not care for me. > There are standards for unit prefixes: k means kilo, M means Mega, G > means Giga, etc. See: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units#Prefixes > > >> million gigabytes per second, or 1.2 * 10^18 Bytes/s. I don't think > >> any known network interface can do that, including highly experimental > >> ones. > >> > >> I suspect you intended to claim that you expect 1.2GB/s (Gigabytes per > >> second) over that 10Gb/s (Gigabits per second) network. > >> That's still on the high side of what's possible. On TCP/IP there is > >> some TCP overhead, so 1.0 GB/s is probably more realistic. > > > > TCP give 5-7% overhead (include retrasmits). > > 10^9/8*0.97 = 1.2125 > > In information science, Bytes are counted in multiples of 2, not 10. A > kb is 1024 bits or 2^10 b. So 10 Gb is 10 * 2^30 bits. Interface speeds counted in multile of 10. 10Mbit ethernet have speed 10^7 bit/s. 64Kbit ISDN have speed 64000, not 65536. > It's also not unusual to be more specific about that 2-base and use > kib, Mib and Gib instead. > > Apparently you didn't know that... > > Also, if you take 5% off, you are left with (0.95 * 10 * 2^30) / 8 = > 1.1875 B/s, not 0.97 * ... Your calculations were a bit optimistic. May bug. 10^10/8*0.93 = 1162500000 = 1162.5 > Now I have to admit I'm used to use a factor of 10 to convert from b/s > to B/s (that's 20%!), but that's probably no longer correct, what with > jumbo frames and all. Ok, may be topic started use software metered speed with MGBs as 1048576 per second. 1162500000/1048576 = 1108.64