From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Fri Feb 28 22:17:18 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E4124771A for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 22:17:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from debdrup@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48TkRf0hgxz4H8m for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 22:17:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from debdrup@freebsd.org) Received: from mail-oi1-f177.google.com (mail-oi1-f177.google.com [209.85.167.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: debdrup) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8D73567E for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 22:17:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from debdrup@freebsd.org) Received: by mail-oi1-f177.google.com with SMTP id 2so4409994oiz.5 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:17:17 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWGqwsyaqbHqTUry1p6I2D7aqBrVgtM6tYAZBw4f1Pr0x8V468x 3X2YGdBZLe2waAznDSkZ1T6h0PNSagy95GqH0x/m4A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy0abzTF+dPdXim9UuaxsOpYqLukL/Fq3LKhgjx9WBuQpCtBVfC0l8lj9eJ/ZWkHa2Sb+bNT46ezjZ6SPmqpeU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:aba:: with SMTP id r26mr4520520oij.4.1582928236971; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:17:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7cfc7c52-b548-19bd-343b-899aca45c654@selasky.org> In-Reply-To: From: Daniel Ebdrup Jensen Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 23:17:03 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: Network throughput not reaching line rate. Need clarification on iflib. To: freebsd-drivers@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Hackers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 22:17:18 -0000 On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:39 PM Bruce A. Mah wrote: > [Resending with a From: address that hopefully works better.] > > If memory serves me right, Daniel Ebdrup Jensen wrote: > > Yes, iperf3 will default to single-threaded packet generation, et al. > which > > favours fast cores with frequency boosting facilities. > > You might want to use iperf2 as that's properly multi-threaded, or you > can > > use pkt-gen out of src/tools/tools/netmap/ or ports/net/pkt-gen. > > While it's true that iperf3 is single-threaded, it should be capable of > saturating a 10GE link with a single TCP connection, given proper > command-line arguments (in particular, specifying a sufficiently large > socket-buffer size with the -w option). > > But based on the symptom of packet loss, I'd say the single-threaded vs. > multi-threaded argument might not be relevant to the problem that the OP > has. > > Bruce. > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:35 AM Hans Petter Selasky > > wrote: > > > >> On 2020-02-28 10:03, Rajesh Kumar wrote: > >>> Hi FreeBSD team, > >>> > >>> I am writing a network driver using iflib framework and using "iperf3" > >> tool > >>> for performance testing. > >>> > >> > >> Is there any difference with "iperf" tool and using multiple threads? I > >> think iperf3 is single threaded ??? > >> > >> --HPS > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > Oh, I didn't mean to imply that that wasn't part of the issue - I'm sorry if I made it sound like that. I was just confirming what Hans was asking, and possibly using the excuse to mention some things in base/ports that I think are also pretty neat. :) Also no longer top-posting, which was rather ghastly of me. I apologise.