From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 3 10:15:13 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80B7D106566C for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 10:15:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com) Received: from blah.sun-fish.com (blah.sun-fish.com [217.18.249.150]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C895F8FC08 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 10:15:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com) Received: by blah.sun-fish.com (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 90DA71B10EF1; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:15:11 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on malcho.cmotd.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.6 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Received: from maylo.moneybookers.com (maylo.dev.moneybookers.net [192.168.3.20]) by blah.sun-fish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002621B10EDC; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:15:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maylo.moneybookers.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B199E37BF837; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:15:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from maylo.moneybookers.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (maylo.dev.moneybookers.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id OqREPfadvFHs; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:15:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hater.cmotd.com (hater.cmotd.com [192.168.3.125]) by maylo.moneybookers.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB6E37BF847; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:15:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <18AAC16B-3CC0-4C70-A009-00A325AB5932@moneybookers.com> From: Stefan Lambrev To: Invernizzi Fabrizio In-Reply-To: <36A93B31228D3B49B691AD31652BCAE9A4560DF947@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:15:08 +0300 References: <36A93B31228D3B49B691AD31652BCAE9A4560DF911@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> <0E567C7E-4EAA-4B89-9A8D-FD0450D32ED7@moneybookers.com> <36A93B31228D3B49B691AD31652BCAE9A4560DF947@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94/9645/Mon Aug 3 00:11:36 2009 on blah.cmotd.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Test on 10GBE Intel based network card X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:15:13 -0000 Hi, On Aug 3, 2009, at 12:53 PM, Invernizzi Fabrizio wrote: > Hi > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stefan Lambrev [mailto:stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com] >> Sent: luned=EC 3 agosto 2009 11.22 >> To: Invernizzi Fabrizio >> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org >> Subject: Re: Test on 10GBE Intel based network card >> >> Hi, >> >> The limitation that you see is about the max number of packets that >> FreeBSD can handle - it looks like your best performance is reached =20= >> at >> 64 byte packets? > > If you are meaning in term of Packet per second, you are right. =20 > These are the packet per second measured during tests: > > 64 byte: 610119 Pps > 512 byte: 516917 Pps > 1492 byte: 464962 Pps > > >> Am I correct that the maximum you can reach is around 639,000 packets >> per second? > > Yes, as you can see the maximum is 610119 Pps. > Where does this limit come from? I duno - the tests I did before were with SYN packets (random source) =20= which was my worst scenario, and the server CPU were busy generating MD5 check sums for =20 "syncache" (around 35% of the time). If I have to compare my results with your, you beat me with factor =20 2.5, may be because you use ICMP for the test and your processor is better then my test stations :) Also my experience is only with gigabit cards (em driver) and FreeBSD =20= 7.something_before_1 where the em thread was eating 100% cpu. If you are lucky LOCK_PROFILING(9) will help you to see where the CPUs =20= spend their time, if not you will see kernel panic :) Once problematic locks identified they can be reworked, but I think =20 the first part is already done and work on the second already started. In my experience increasing hw.em.rxd and hw.em.txd yelled better =20 results, but I think ixgb already comes tuned by default as it still doesn't have to support such a large number of different =20 cards. Also at the time of my tests there were not support for multi queues =20 in the OS even if they were supported by the HW, which is changed in =20 7.2 (?) > >> Also you are not routing the traffic, but instead the server handles >> the requests itself and eat CPU to reply? > > Correct. In these first tests I want to "tune" the system, so I am =20 > using the (let me say) worst scenario. > > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance- >> unsubscribe@freebsd.org >>> " >> >> -- >> Best Wishes, >> Stefan Lambrev >> ICQ# 24134177 >> >> >> >> > > > Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente =20 > alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione =20= > derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente =20= > vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete =20= > cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e =20= > di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. > > This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain =20 > privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. =20 > Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is =20 > unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete =20 > this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-=20 > mail, Thanks. > -- Best Wishes, Stefan Lambrev ICQ# 24134177