From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 29 18:19:25 2010 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 2271B106564A for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:19:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAEF28FC16 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:19:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ywh2 with SMTP id 2so1693268ywh.13 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:19:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:from:date:to:cc :subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=W0iV/PqJQ/18Lh7t36z3Z9BKgjtKI1wq/cUG29DOUmQ=; b=tHZvJIGmygVAjVXw5le4c9BhLEOtIcmN0nuh3BzFGs0Y9Nfuus1So4R/Xw4tUi8i+k 7ChpIPc3CgkHDcDfBMqlRGVEHYfwxSMzg0dS6/UUiICUo4NsfPMlJLz+ROkcEdgQhZov NjYngx0rELiBfZD+eOh3XRzmI9GHP6o0nxzRc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=AZnmkzoMl7tAzxdzXxGVnUhJSoT0dNN457vRYanjuVa1tZGu3kZ9MaYcBRlOfXznul P487sjOAb3EozH2GXLBfm/qZ0XnlCpGO//Z45H53V4s0/fcuF3upw46prOZGttoEWWnO r4hb/xkAXpPhFgx968A8AAQ7kXCgJ7IOzWU2A= Received: by 10.101.69.3 with SMTP id w3mr10577843ank.32.1288376364153; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:19:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pyunyh@gmail.com ([174.35.1.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w15sm2784601anw.13.2010.10.29.11.19.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:19:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pyunyh@gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:17:45 -0700 From: Pyun YongHyeon Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:17:45 -0700 To: =?utf-8?B?0JrQvtC90YzQutC+0LIg0JXQstCz0LXQvdC40Lk=?= Message-ID: <20101029181745.GC19479@michelle.cdnetworks.com> References: <364322520.20101029102010@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <364322520.20101029102010@yandex.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to obtain place of low perfomance? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:19:25 -0000 On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:20:10AM +0300, ?????????????? ?????????????? wrote: > Hi, Freebsd-net. > > serv1# ifocnfig nfe0 > nfe0: flags=8943 metric 0 mtu 1500 > options=10b > ether 00:13:d4:ce:82:16 > inet 10.11.8.17 netmask 0xfffffc00 broadcast 10.11.11.255 > inet 10.11.8.15 netmask 0xfffffc00 broadcast 10.11.11.255 > media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseTX ) > status: active > serv1# ifconfig igb0 > igb0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 > options=19b > ether 00:1b:21:45:da:b8 > media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseTX ) > status: active > serv1# ifconfig vlan7 > vlan7: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 > options=3 > ether 00:1b:21:45:da:b8 > inet 10.11.15.15 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.11.15.255 > inet 10.11.7.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.11.7.255 > media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseTX ) > status: active > vlan: 7 parent interface: igb0 > > doing bw test with iperf it show low performance on nfe0. > > # iperf -c 10.11.8.17 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Client connecting to 10.11.8.17, TCP port 5001 > TCP window size: 32.5 KByte (default) > ------------------------------------------------------------ > [ 3] local 10.11.8.16 port 63911 connected with 10.11.8.17 port 5001 > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth > [ 3] 0.0-10.5 sec 124 MBytes 98.8 Mbits/sec > # iperf -c 10.11.7.1 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Client connecting to 10.11.7.1, TCP port 5001 > TCP window size: 32.5 KByte (default) > ------------------------------------------------------------ > [ 3] local 10.11.7.2 port 61422 connected with 10.11.7.1 port 5001 > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth > [ 3] 0.0-10.3 sec 800 MBytes 653 Mbits/sec > > despite on it is integrated I expect about 300-400Mbit throughput > does nfe0 really so poor NIC? nfe(4) controllers would not be one of best controllers targeted for server environments but generally it's not poor for desktop users. I mean you should be able to saturate link when you use bulk TCP/UDP transfers. Last time I tried iperf it was not reliable. Did you disable threading of iperf? Also note, both sender/receiver of iperf should be built with same configuration option.