Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:16:51 +0100 From: Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it> To: pyunyh@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Intel 82550 Pro/100 Ethernet and TSO troubles Message-ID: <4EEA0153.5010305@netfence.it> In-Reply-To: <20111214213242.GD11426@michelle.cdnetworks.com> References: <4EE8FA10.8090502@netfence.it> <20111214195918.GC11426@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <4EE91275.3060808@netfence.it> <20111214213242.GD11426@michelle.cdnetworks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/14/11 22:32, YongHyeon PYUN wrote: >> Wireshark showed some wrong checksums (I believe on the ICMP packet, but >> I might remember wrong). > > You can check whether you received bad checksummed frames with > netstat(1). I tried "netstat -ind", but it shows no Ierrs/Idrop/Oerrs/Odrop. > Is simple downloading from client to server is enough to trigger > the issue? Yes and no. Depending on where the client is located (on the Internet) and/or the protocol used, I get either failures or ridicuolous performance (i.e. 58-60kB/s without TSO vs. 1-2kB/s with TSO). > Packet capture that shows the problem would be great to > know what's going on here. I'll send them to you privately. You'll see tso.dump and notso.dump: they are both from the same client downloading the same (random) file (the file name was changed only to prevent possible caching). See notso.dump is perfect, while tso.dump shows a lot of potential problems. >> Would you try attached patch and let me know it goes? > Sorry, it seems extra pull up for TCP payload may not be required > here. Try this instead. I see a little increase in performance (2-3kB/s instead of 1-2kB/s); this might however well depend on external factors. Still it is very different from what I'm get without TSO. bye & Thanks av. P.S. I can live well without TSO; I'm just doing this to let the software improve. Go ahead only if *you* are interested.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EEA0153.5010305>