From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Thu Jul 21 00:39:14 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 4F5C3B834F5 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 00:39:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chris@dunbar.net) Received: from 006.lax.mailroute.net (006.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.mailroute.net", Issuer "AlphaSSL CA - SHA256 - G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FFC41ED3 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 00:39:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chris@dunbar.net) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by 006.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3rvvwV71fTz13L77 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 00:36:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 006.lax.mailroute.net ([199.89.1.9]) by localhost (006.lax.mailroute.net [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10026) with LMTP id 9t-3oAfM_8RJ for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 00:36:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zimbra.earthside.net (unknown [50.251.189.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by 006.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3rvvwS49Knz13L6m for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 00:36:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.earthside.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A0650267B for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 20:36:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zimbra.earthside.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.earthside.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id rQqOrOmUBhon for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 20:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.earthside.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76D350267C for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 20:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zimbra.earthside.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.earthside.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id aKGHndoOY6S8 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 20:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zimbra.earthside.net (zimbra.earthside.net [10.11.12.148]) by zimbra.earthside.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC2150267B for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 20:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 20:36:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Chris Dunbar To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Message-ID: <1244557023.708807.1469061382192.JavaMail.zimbra@dunbar.net> Subject: Slow performance with Intel X540-T2 10Gb NIC MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.11.12.148] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.6.0_GA_1153 (ZimbraWebClient - GC51 (Mac)/8.6.0_GA_1153) Thread-Topic: Slow performance with Intel X540-T2 10Gb NIC Thread-Index: C+DfYhHIN+CVKUXHyyOv7qhR5CwXaw== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.22 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: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 00:39:14 -0000 Hello, I am new to FreeBSD and recently built a file server out of new components running FreeBSD 10.3. I installed an Intel X540-T2 10 Gb NIC and am experiencing what I consider to be slow transfer speeds. I am using iperf3 to measure the speed and test the results of modifications. So far nothing I have done has made a noticeable difference. If I run iperf3 -s on the FreeBSD server, I see transfer speeds of approximately 1.6 Gb/s. If I run iperf3 in client mode, the speed improves to ~2.75 Gb/s. However, if I replace FreeBSD with CentOS 7 on the same hardware, I see iperf3 speeds surpassing 8 GB/s. The other end of my iperf3 test is a Windows 10 box that also has an Intel X540-T2 installed. I did notice that FreeBSD 10.3 (and 11.0 alpha 6 for that matter) includes a slightly older Intel driver (v3.1.13-k). I managed to build a custom kernel that removed the Intel PRO/10GbE PCIE NIC drivers. That allowed me to manually load the latest 3.1.14 driver downloaded from Intel's web site. Unfortunately that did not produce any improvements. I am working my way through man tuning() and some other articles on network performance. So far nothing I tweak makes a noticeable difference. I'm increasingly skeptical that I am going to find a setting or two that more than doubles the speed I am currently experiencing. I am open to any and all suggestions at this point. Thank you! Chris