From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Apr 29 20:08:44 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D571C159C0A2 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 20:08:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asomers@gmail.com) Received: from mail-lj1-f171.google.com (mail-lj1-f171.google.com [209.85.208.171]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4319870A9E for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 20:08:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asomers@gmail.com) Received: by mail-lj1-f171.google.com with SMTP id t10so9546796ljg.7 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 13:08:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MBLubrtKQ6UNYqJWo1iMmeW2gT6QQSV7n+RvxLwqolk=; b=tt9+Z2z7ZCX3fCOvdx+M2dMhY3faGMU6yDgwb3vg/VOtidBfB9felPJpTKPsJoTN9c jJVPJVSvL7EtF+CBJo3Hqpo56xH7+JmswtkZekqt9f1A9GWdfnhT4e93e8lGgRfV275y UpWLip4kq2zi4C7N1BPbu+lc0VyD5Cx6lvMlZYJJnRswOratjIowsj0+Jw6yX6ZZp8V/ 2YQPhBSQoBMv1JRp8cJUDZOaJHvMqAS5k7/U7jBlAenhtI+SDQzN8Tc5UJzCks8Hr6Rn rJ6WbRBW5o/x5UqDv5t0nyohgC5yK0K/78bNt8ik6IeH3TBftcm7Dq/f+SYuq9JKJjgk KUNw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWEMq13bATZfjvFGsi2a8J9v5RJ8Arx3ZUHA97K4rD/gJRHmZH7 qJY7y/6x1q/3eubNTMS7xoVgDXZgB3oqwO9I/0c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxmEJjYeA43zDCTFv48c+WGBLzrEV2ZW7a5GVkQsKpv28VRpZfQ6LGLEtmbrDfglMxM6RKej+qHKG6MCFcbTH0= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:5b5b:: with SMTP id p88mr5048359ljb.53.1556568517015; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Alan Somers Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:08:25 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: very low performance tcp/rsh To: Eugene Grosbein Cc: Wojciech Puchar , "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4319870A9E X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of asomers@gmail.com designates 209.85.208.171 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=asomers@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.93 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: alt3.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.58)[-0.580,0]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[171.208.85.209.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[asomers@freebsd.org,asomers@gmail.com]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[asomers@freebsd.org,asomers@gmail.com]; IP_SCORE(-1.34)[ip: (-0.53), ipnet: 209.85.128.0/17(-3.86), asn: 15169(-2.24), country: US(-0.06)]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] 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: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 20:08:44 -0000 On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:57 PM Eugene Grosbein wrote: > > 30.04.2019 2:22, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > create 32GB hole-file > > > > dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=32k seek=1m count=0 > > > > fetch -o /dev/null over ftp (proftpd) gives 1.4GB/s > > > > proftpd consumed 100% of single core. much better. > > > > tested with FreeBSD ftpd - 1.7GB/s > > > > seems like freebsd can saturate 10Gb/s ethernet with single core (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz) > > > > > > Still where is the most overhead? one memcopy to packet buffers+creating packet headers (send). > > > > reception is on separate process taking another core. > > > > > > still - quite good. But compared to filesystem overhead - large. > > Do not use file with holes (holes require special processing taking lots of CPU cycles). > Create ordinary file within RAM disk and use sock ftp daemon for sake of sendfile(). Better yet, if the goal is simply to measure TCP performance, use benchmarks/netperf. Don't try to do anything involving files. -Alan