From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 9 08:51:57 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468BC106564A for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:51:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93468FC17 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:51:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA9E28427; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 10:51:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (static-84-242-120-26.net.upcbroadband.cz [84.242.120.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 475EC28423; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 10:51:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4FD30EA3.8060500@quip.cz> Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 10:51:47 +0200 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 Lightning/1.0b1 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sebastian Stach References: <4FCE37FC.1090405@gmail.com> <878874BA-2F5C-4A7E-8690-2A8A96536AE0@t-online.de> <4FCE6931.6010901@quip.cz> <4FCE786A.2030205@quip.cz> <4FCF2E6E.2040902@quip.cz> <3B262A53-C137-4E4E-B1B7-7471B1FBA258@t-online.de> In-Reply-To: <3B262A53-C137-4E4E-B1B7-7471B1FBA258@t-online.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable Subject: Re: em interfaces supermicro X9SCM-F board / X9SCA-F X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:51:57 -0000 Sebastian Stach wrote: > Thanks for doing the test. > > My conditions are different in that i have a gigabit network. > The only difference in the iperf options is that i'm using > -d (dualmode). > > On the weekend i will have time to do a test with the NICs > set to 100MBit. > > Sebastian Stach Hi, I changed the switch to 1Gbps and run the test again. No problems with the NICs. The iperf is running for 10 hours now. 2TB of data was transmitted in both directions. I am running an endless loop on a client side while 1 iperf -c xx.xx.xx.xx --format k -m -p 999 -t 1800 -d sleep 5 end ------------------------------------------------------------ Server listening on TCP port 999 TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to yy.yy.yy.yy, TCP port 999 TCP window size: 137 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 5] local xx.xx.xx.xx port 18834 connected with yy.yy.yy.yy port 999 [ 4] local xx.xx.xx.xx port 999 connected with yy.yy.yy.yy port 59754 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 4] 0.0-1800.0 sec 82823213 KBytes 376938 Kbits/sec [ 4] MSS size 1448 bytes (MTU 1500 bytes, ethernet) [ 5] 0.0-1800.0 sec 73954944 KBytes 336575 Kbits/sec [ 5] MSS size 1448 bytes (MTU 1500 bytes, ethernet) And another endless loop on server side while 1 iperf -s -p 999 end ------------------------------------------------------------ Server listening on TCP port 999 TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 4] local yy.yy.yy.yy port 999 connected with xx.xx.xx.xx port 18834 ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to xx.xx.xx.xx, TCP port 999 TCP window size: 65.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 6] local yy.yy.yy.yy port 59754 connected with xx.xx.xx.xx port 999 Waiting for server threads to complete. Interrupt again to force quit. [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 6] 0.0-1800.0 sec 79.0 GBytes 377 Mbits/sec [ 4] 0.0-1800.0 sec 70.5 GBytes 337 Mbits/sec Client is on the Supermicro X9SCA-F em0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 options=4219b ether 00:25:90:73:d1:76 inet xx.xx.xx.xx netmask 0xffffff80 broadcast xx.xx.xx.xx media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT ) status: active Server is running on the Cisco UCS C200 M2 igb0: flags=8943 metric 0 mtu 1500 options=401bb ether 50:57:a8:af:eb:0a inet yy.yy.yy.yy netmask 0xffffff80 broadcast yy.yy.yy.yy media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT ) status: active Both sides are running FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE amd64 GENERIC So the only difference is that I am using NIC em0 in shared mode for remote management. Can you try your test with shared mode? Miroslav Lachman