Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 09:35:10 -0800 (PST) From: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Michael_T=FCxen?= <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Subject: Re: igb interrupt moderation Message-ID: <608024.81055.qm@web63904.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
--- On Sun, 1/3/10, Michael Tüxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> wrote: > From: Michael Tüxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> > Subject: Re: igb interrupt moderation > To: "Barney Cordoba" <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> > Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, "Mike Tancsa" <mike@sentex.net> > Date: Sunday, January 3, 2010, 12:14 PM > On Jan 3, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Barney > Cordoba wrote: > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 1/3/10, Michael Tüxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> > wrote: > > > >> From: Michael Tüxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> > >> Subject: Re: igb interrupt moderation > >> To: "Mike Tancsa" <mike@sentex.net> > >> Cc: "Barney Cordoba" <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com>, > jfvogel@gmail.com, > freebsd-net@freebsd.org > >> Date: Sunday, January 3, 2010, 11:38 AM > >> On Jan 3, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Mike > >> Tancsa wrote: > >> > >>> At 11:13 AM 1/3/2010, Michael Tüxen wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Just a separate datapoint about this > driver, > >> unless I apply > >>>>> > >>>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/igb/igb.buf.patch6 > >>>>> > >>>>> the driver is not really usable for me > in > >> RELENG_8 on the dual port version of the card > >>>> Could you elaborate on what you mean by > "not > >> really usable"? > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> Some > link state issues > >> (getting confused about what port is up), problems > at high > >> packet rates. I dont have this card in > production, but > >> in my test environment it was much more stable on > RELENG_8 > >> with the above patch in that I was not able to > wedge the > >> box. pps rates were pretty ok on a low end > i7 as > >> well. > >> Thanks for the information. I'll give it a try. I > have a > >> problem when I flood > >> a system with SCTP INITs. The system under attack > becomes > >> completely unresponsive > >> on the console. However, it continues to send > INIT-ACKs > >> back. After the last > >> commit from Jack it recovers after the attack. Not > yet sure > >> what is going on. > >> Using the em driver does not have the problem. > However, > >> when using the em > >> driver only one core is fully used, when using the > igb > >> driver both cores are fully > >> used. Unfortunately I do not have a more than dual > core > >> machine available for > >> this testing... > > > > Try em and lower the interrupt moderation to something > like 500 (about > > 100 packets per int is good). The latency isn't going > to be noticable and > > you'll see your cpu burden reduced quite a bit. > I'll try. Thanks. > > > > Are you using a single NIC on a server, or do you have > a firewall or > > bridge? > The system is a sender/receiver for SCTP. I'm interested in > the 82576 > since it provides checksum offloading for it. I use one or > two ports > for simultaneous data transfer. The cards using the em > driver do > not support this feature. So I'm trying to verify that the > performance > goes up when using hardware checksum. But under attack, > this is currently > not the case... > > > > Barney I usually try to find something that actually works before I worry about special features. But we all work differently. Barneyhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?608024.81055.qm>