Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:21:11 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_Cochard=2DLabb=C3=A9?= <olivier@freebsd.org> To: Patrick Lamaiziere <patfbsd@davenulle.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: poor performance with Intel X520 card Message-ID: <CA%2Bq%2BTcpmP9m4ijJ2F5Uw7nZBZEo=1%2BnzHr0D8YwruqdBRd-qOA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20200710084530.777ce321@mr185033.univ-rennes1.fr> References: <20200710084530.777ce321@mr185033.univ-rennes1.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:45 AM Patrick Lamaiziere <patfbsd@davenulle.org> wrote: > 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. > > Hi Patrick, yes 500 Kpps is quite low: Do you have a very complex long pf rule set? A 8 core Atom C2758 with an old Intel 10G 82599 is able to reach about 1.6Mpps (with one pf rule), so I would expect more on your setup. https://github.com/ocochard/netbenches/blob/master/Atom_C2758_8Cores-Intel_82599/forwarding-pf-ipfw/results/fbsd12-stable.r354440.BSDRP.1.96/README.md So, try this: - Identify the bottleneck: pmcstat and flamegraph are the tools for that; - Use FreeBSD -head or a 12-stable minimum but not less; - You should follow instruction here: https://wiki.freebsd.org/10gFreeBSD/Router Regards, Olivier
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2Bq%2BTcpmP9m4ijJ2F5Uw7nZBZEo=1%2BnzHr0D8YwruqdBRd-qOA>