Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 02:35:16 +0800 From: Zhenlei Huang <zlei@FreeBSD.org> To: tuexen@freebsd.org Cc: current@freebsd.org, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Request for Testing: TCP RACK Message-ID: <941203D6-3A72-48A4-8C2C-F59C964199A9@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <42C327BD-6CE4-43AA-A1AE-3BEC08D623DB@freebsd.org> References: <42C327BD-6CE4-43AA-A1AE-3BEC08D623DB@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Nov 16, 2023, at 5:13 PM, tuexen@freebsd.org wrote: > > Dear all, > > recently the main branch was changed to build the TCP RACK stack > which is a loadable kernel module, by default: > https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=3a338c534154164504005beb00a3c6feb03756cc > > As discussed on the bi-weekly transport call, it would be great if people > could test the RACK stack for their workload. Please report any problems to the > net@ mailing list or open an issue in the bug tracker and drop me a note via email. > This includes regressions in CPU usage, regressions in performance or any other > unexpected change you observe. I see some performance regression with the rack stack. This is iperf3 test on local host (bare metal, an old i5 2 cores 4 threads MBP). freebsd: 16.1 Gbits/sec rack: 12.3 Gbits/sec The congestion control algorithm is cubic. Note this is a quick test with DEBUG options enabled. I'll try with no debug options and report later. > > You can load the kernel module using > kldload tcp_rack > > You can make the RACK stack the default stack using > sysctl net.inet.tcp.functions_default=rack > > Based on the feedback we get, the default stack might be switched to the > RACK stack. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Best regards > Michael > > > Best regards, Zhenlei
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?941203D6-3A72-48A4-8C2C-F59C964199A9>