From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 3 21:12:35 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 6BDED295; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:12:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-x22d.google.com (mail-vc0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 132A818C; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:12:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id ld13so4099497vcb.4 for ; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:12:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2YhHLr2yG3koVqsEuKa4NeHahw8jnCd+XtKlwDNlni4=; b=dtXgVReBZ736joZk6qUJsg+iyUPUkS2ThySZA30JdOIyQEC+Wpy/aT5ueIkk99RFou /kMXBtcEbaCi6FVtZUP/2NY1+lL1vohSVGFGO0TotkavBu/eevQov9Vc/iz2W+3gF8W9 kdgYmccCK1f52GCgXmOpohxcIC7ybAuM3m5XgXJFzqEDhURsbiAGtcL2TQWuabzGwFtK TNF5GTyGpx81952myd4xwB0zGDUmqjijdFuS1etnHvz/sulWeSVp2zHTJ5FYMnlZSgql p5CcTuW0aXVGgYy2dW8dqNe9clWU2gVCjXI1+SYD8+9ykmzpd5lmmWtz8UQmTRT7501B rJug== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.123.70 with SMTP id ly6mr18857384veb.26.1393881154154; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:12:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.221.11.135 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:12:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:12:34 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Strange network performance on Intel Rangeley (8 cores Atom) From: Jack Vogel To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cochard=2DLabb=E9?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" 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: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 21:12:35 -0000 What OS version are you running? Jack On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Olivier Cochard-Labb=E9 wrote: > Hi all, > > I've got a new toy in my network bench lab: a SuperMicro SuperServer > 5018A-FTN4. > But I've got a problem for understanding and obtaining good throughput fo= r > "routing" or "firewalling" usages. > > I'm using only the embedded 4 gigabit ports of the Atom C2758 SoC. > With the default igb(4) parameters which is to create 8 queues (because > there is 8 cores) this server is not able to receive more than 585K > packet-per-seconds into one port which is far from the gigabit line-rate > (1.48Mpps): I was expecting better throughput with 8 cores. > Then I did a bunch of new benchmarks by measuring the impact of number of > queue and the results are here: > > http://bsdrp.net/documentation/examples/forwarding_performance_lab_of_a_s= uperserver_5018a-ftn4#graph > > =3D> I've got better results with only 4 queues than 8... but still low > throughput with only 938Kpps. > > Then I decided to measure the impact of pf and ipfw on the throughput wit= h > 4 and 8 queues. > And the results are annoying: > > http://bsdrp.net/documentation/examples/forwarding_performance_lab_of_a_s= uperserver_5018a-ftn4#graph1 > > =3D> With 8 queues, enabling pf or ipfw improve the input throughput of t= he > igb(4) port. > > Why so low throughput with 8 queues ? > Why better throughput with pf or ipfw enabled than without ? > > Thanks, > > Olivier > _______________________________________________ > 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" >