From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Fri Jul 10 06:45:45 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A2F360C47 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:45:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from patfbsd@davenulle.org) Received: from sender4-of-o58.zoho.com (sender4-of-o58.zoho.com [136.143.188.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B33TN4PLHz4CLQ for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:45:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from patfbsd@davenulle.org) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1594363540; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=nglXJ4CBmQat6qVWNS4ACRrLp66FxF3cdPGV7xaAdcZmxmRkE5/Nl7GZTI7pOe5g4fMfUGrdZqoNRibciogVspEpycbcyMptr+9KM8QLwIEk5Rw5v1+0kmd0REYieWiJgD6a1CBw0v6CTq9cVgxIPqrVrni8FlAVndSy3WAhOM0= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1594363540; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date:From:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject:To; bh=YCuN93pyalsIOi935kNtlXJC+C4zmQLrR/ibSy891E0=; b=G62hileRAUDD3Y6jA2qgLSdL5zJR/EEl1zUVjNTRtvlzm31V6KsR8Kucq+zxSjjTea5761GwfEBlRtQDT80u9xx2aqEGZL/kjJQ8hOsDk4A1ywwKMF2h0zxHhDIPsdJ2xWud0ZUj3ILCJ+2/OEnoalqzcSFaafLQHSS6g9EFGTI= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=patfbsd@davenulle.org; dmarc=pass header.from= header.from= Received: from mr185033.univ-rennes1.fr (mr185033.univ-rennes1.fr [129.20.185.33]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 15943635386511014.9167564904135; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 23:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 08:45:30 +0200 From: Patrick Lamaiziere To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: poor performance with Intel X520 card Message-ID: <20200710084530.777ce321@mr185033.univ-rennes1.fr> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4B33TN4PLHz4CLQ X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of patfbsd@davenulle.org has no SPF policy when checking 136.143.188.58) smtp.mailfrom=patfbsd@davenulle.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.80 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.79)[-0.789]; ARC_ALLOW(-1.00)[zohomail.com:s=zohoarc:i=1]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_GOOD(0.00)[136.143.188.58:from]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.34)[-0.335]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[davenulle.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.57)[-0.574]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[136.143.188.58:from]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:2639, ipnet:136.143.188.0/24, country:US]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:45:45 -0000 Hello, That is mostly for the record but it looks like the intel X520 is not very good and generates a high level of interrupts. On a router / firewall with 500 Kpps in input (dropped by pf) is enough to put the CPUs at 100% busy. We use FreeBSD 11.3 on a machine with 12 CPU Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2643 v3 @ 3.40GHz (3400.07-MHz K8-class CPU) FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 12 CPUs FreeBSD/SMP: 2 package(s) x 6 core(s) Multi threading is disabled. ix0: port 0x3020-0x303f mem 0x92300000-0x923fffff,0x92404000-0x92407fff irq 34 at device 0.0 numa-domain 0 on pci5 ix0: Using MSI-X interrupts with 9 vectors ix0: Ethernet address: a0:36:9f:93:84:10 ix0: PCI Express Bus: Speed 5.0GT/s Width x8 ix0: netmap queues/slots: TX 8/2048, RX 8/2048 I've set fews tunable in loader.conf but I don't remember why loader.conf # cartes ix #hw.ix.max_interrupt_rate=100000 #hw.ix.enable_aim=0 hw.ix.tx_process_limit=-1 hw.ix.rx_process_limit=-1 #hw.ix.num_queues=6 hw.intr_storm_threshold=9000 Well, do you think another NIC cards can help to reach a better pps rate ? I think 500 Kpps is quite low for such a machine. Thanks, best regards.