From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 15 14:16:59 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD74B1065670 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:16:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from cp-out9.libero.it (cp-out9.libero.it [212.52.84.109]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B9268FC13 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:16:59 +0000 (UTC) X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0B0207.4EEA0159.01A2,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-libjamoibt: 1555 Received: from soth.ventu (151.41.159.94) by cp-out9.libero.it (8.5.133) id 4EA2ECE107AC02C6; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:16:57 +0100 Received: from alamar.ventu (alamar.ventu [10.1.2.18]) by soth.ventu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBFEGpG6052354; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:16:51 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Message-ID: <4EEA0153.5010305@netfence.it> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:16:51 +0100 From: Andrea Venturoli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; it-IT; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111207 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pyunyh@gmail.com References: <4EE8FA10.8090502@netfence.it> <20111214195918.GC11426@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <4EE91275.3060808@netfence.it> <20111214213242.GD11426@michelle.cdnetworks.com> In-Reply-To: <20111214213242.GD11426@michelle.cdnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 10.1.2.13 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Intel 82550 Pro/100 Ethernet and TSO troubles X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:16:59 -0000 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.