From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 27 22:14:48 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB692B7F; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:14:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F194D5F; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:14:47 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqoEAEKiNFODaFve/2dsb2JhbABZg0FXgwq4HYYZTVGBN3SCJQEBAQMBAQEBIAQnIAsFFhgCAg0ZAikBCSYOBwQBHASHUAgNrn2iVReBKYxvCgYCARs0BxaCWYFJBJV2hAqRAYNLITF7Qg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,745,1389762000"; d="scan'208";a="109838808" Received: from muskoka.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.222]) by esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2014 18:14:47 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1270EB3F0B; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:14:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:14:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: araujo@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <1882337939.1849245.1395958487066.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: RFC: How to fix the NFS/iSCSI vs TSO problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.209] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.1_GA_2790 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/7.2.1_GA_2790) Cc: pyunyh@gmail.com, FreeBSD Filesystems , Alexander Motin , FreeBSD Net X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 27 Mar 2014 22:14:48 -0000 Marcelo Araujo wrote: > Hello All, > > > 2014-03-27 8:27 GMT+08:00 Rick Macklem : > > > > Well, bumping it from 32->35 is all it would take for NFS (can't > > comment > > w.r.t. iSCSI). ixgbe uses 100 for the 82598 chip and 32 for the > > 82599 > > (just so others aren't confused by the above comment). I understand > > your point was w.r.t. using 100 without blowing the kernel stack, > > but > > since the testers have been using "ix" with the 82599 chip which is > > limited to 32 transmit segments... > > > > However, please increase any you know can be safely done from > > 32->35, rick > > > > > I have plenty of machines using Intel X540 that is based on 82599 > chipset. > I have applied Rick's patch on ixgbe to check if the packet size is > bigger > than 65535 or cluster is bigger than 32. So far till now, on FreeBSD > 9.1-RELEASE this problem does not happens. > > Unfortunately all my environment here is based on 9.1-RELEASE, with > some > merges from 10-RELEASE such like: NFS and IXGBE. > > Also I have applied the patch that Rick sent in another email with > the > subject 'NFS patch to use pagesize mbuf clusters'. And we can see > some > performance boost over 10Gbps Intel. However here at the company, we > are > still doing benchmarks. If someone wants to have my benchmark result, > I can > send it later. > > I'm wondering, if this update on ixgbe from 32->35 could be applied > also > for versions < 9.2. I'm thinking, that this problem arise only on > 9-STABLE > and consequently on 9.2-RELEASE. And fortunately or not 9.1-RELEASE > doesn't > share it. > My understanding is that the 32 limitation is a hardware one for the 82599. It appears that other drivers than the ixgbe.c can be increased from 32->35, but not ixgbe.c (for the 82599 chips). rick > Best Regards, > -- > Marcelo Araujo > araujo@FreeBSD.org > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >