From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 30 04:42:14 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D7E1065670 for ; Fri, 30 May 2008 04:42:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.237]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F5C78FC1A for ; Fri, 30 May 2008 04:42:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so4482286rvf.43 for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 21:42:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=QgU8zNgRZlRH91YtbQCBwyzxMeiCEO6aByQEObPo7nw=; b=wvKgMTCoHPjxucZ1Yd5SpQ7t0Vmkf+/TgkAznCE+bdPwc24mQuwHXFZvuOrwyqjK4BloO160y7fXdMvntSXBnvsQ5KqUXYTZ6ncUsCPcD7lA6hBj1LJSX4XaSESnxp1DK1puNrB4OWeyyzKRatSg2YEVyJ4WWSE07PQFwOP9Zso= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=MRrPIZ+aYQw2i1Z3U+xIBbUZoTvKdhS9Ym11JNUa7wrW+GJKaqxWH5cMKfZry+WQWGcXztpdwHdSxEacdRYRobHNJjPw51ITlA9We9awHb+bml9aNsZ+TzxcnJuL9ojgVtlImHbAqUHcdJ7NBXP0G8dJtgitCz75LPYBGXOVlqw= Received: by 10.141.22.1 with SMTP id z1mr2724589rvi.277.1212122533918; Thu, 29 May 2008 21:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr ( [211.53.35.84]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l31sm2277937rvb.6.2008.05.29.21.42.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 29 May 2008 21:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (localhost.cdnetworks.co.kr [127.0.0.1]) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id m4U4g8vD072953 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 30 May 2008 13:42:08 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: (from yongari@localhost) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id m4U4g7x5072952; Fri, 30 May 2008 13:42:07 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 13:42:07 +0900 From: Pyun YongHyeon To: Arnaud Houdelette Message-ID: <20080530044207.GH64177@cdnetworks.co.kr> References: <483EBCDD.2070408@tzim.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <483EBCDD.2070408@tzim.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bad TCP performance with large MTU on 7-stable. X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 04:42:14 -0000 On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 04:25:33PM +0200, Arnaud Houdelette wrote: > I got really poor performance when I try to upload files to the box (via > pureFTP or Samba) when using jumbo frames somewhat above 2k. > > uname -a : > FreeBSD carenath.tzim.net 7.0-STABLE FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE #4: Wed May 28 > 17:45:14 CEST 2008 > tzim@carenath.tzim.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/CARENATH amd64 > > It seems that TCP acks are delayed for about a second, so the upload > rate nevers goes above 60kB/s. I can provide wireshark captures done on > the box uploading the files if necessary. > The client is a Windows XP64 box, but I do not recall having the same > problem on 6.2. I did got about 100 MB/s for similar file transfers, but > I had to disable jumbo frames when I upgraded to 7.0-Release because of > some bug on txcsum/rxcsum on re(4) so I only noticed the issue recently. > > The txcsum bug doesn't seem to occur anymore, but now I have this > strange rate issue, with or without checksum offloading disabled. > I also tried with tso disabled. Same results. Is it related to the re(4) > driver ? Or to the TCP stack ? > It seems that handling jumbo frame in re(4) is one of trickiest feature. Would you show me the following information? - Captured tcpdump data on receiving side(i.e. host with re(4)) in your test. - dmesg output of re(4) - MTU size you've configured - output of "netstat -nd -I re0" - output of "ifconfig re0" -- Regards, Pyun YongHyeon