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>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- On Sun, 1/3/10, Michael T=FCxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> wrot= e:=0A=0A> From: Michael T=FCxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>=0A> Subj= ect: Re: igb interrupt moderation=0A> To: "Barney Cordoba" <barney_cordoba@= yahoo.com>=0A> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, "Mike Tancsa" <mike@sentex.net>= =0A> Date: Sunday, January 3, 2010, 12:14 PM=0A> On Jan 3, 2010, at 6:00 PM= , Barney=0A> Cordoba wrote:=0A> =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > --- On Sun, 1/3/10, Mi= chael T=FCxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>=0A> wrote:=0A> > =0A> >> F= rom: Michael T=FCxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>=0A> >> Subject: Re:= igb interrupt moderation=0A> >> To: "Mike Tancsa" <mike@sentex.net>=0A> >>= Cc: "Barney Cordoba" <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com>,=0A> jfvogel@gmail.com,=0A= > freebsd-net@freebsd.org=0A> >> Date: Sunday, January 3, 2010, 11:38 AM=0A= > >> On Jan 3, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Mike=0A> >> Tancsa wrote:=0A> >> =0A> >>> = At 11:13 AM 1/3/2010, Michael T=FCxen wrote:=0A> >>>>> =0A> >>>>> Just a se= parate datapoint about this=0A> driver,=0A> >> unless I apply=0A> >>>>> =0A= > >>>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/igb/igb.buf.patch6=0A>; >>>>> =0A= > >>>>> the driver is not really usable for me=0A> in=0A> >> RELENG_8 on th= e dual port version of the card=0A> >>>> Could you elaborate on what you me= an by=0A> "not=0A> >> really usable"?=0A> >>> =0A> >>> =0A> >>> Hi,=0A> >>>= =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0=A0Some=0A> link state issues=0A> >> (getting confused ab= out what port is up), problems=0A> at high=0A> >> packet rates.=A0 I dont h= ave this card in=0A> production, but=0A> >> in my test environment it was m= uch more stable on=0A> RELENG_8=0A> >> with the above patch in that I was n= ot able to=0A> wedge the=0A> >> box.=A0 pps rates were pretty ok on a low e= nd=0A> i7 as=0A> >> well.=0A> >> Thanks for the information. I'll give it a= try. I=0A> have a=0A> >> problem when I flood=0A> >> a system with SCTP IN= ITs. The system under attack=0A> becomes=0A> >> completely unresponsive=0A>= >> on the console. However, it continues to send=0A> INIT-ACKs=0A> >> back= . After the last=0A> >> commit from Jack it recovers after the attack. Not= =0A> yet sure=0A> >> what is going on.=0A> >> Using the em driver does not = have the problem.=0A> However,=0A> >> when using the em=0A> >> driver only = one core is fully used, when using the=0A> igb=0A> >> driver both cores are= fully=0A> >> used. Unfortunately I do not have a more than dual=0A> core= =0A> >> machine available for=0A> >> this testing...=0A> > =0A> > Try em an= d lower the interrupt moderation to something=0A> like 500 (about=0A> > 100= packets per int is good). The latency isn't going=0A> to be noticable and= =0A> > you'll see your cpu burden reduced quite a bit. =0A> I'll try. Thank= s.=0A> > =0A> > Are you using a single NIC on a server, or do you have=0A> = a firewall or=0A> > bridge?=0A> The system is a sender/receiver for SCTP. I= 'm interested in=0A> the 82576=0A> since it provides checksum offloading fo= r it. I use one or=0A> two ports=0A> for simultaneous data transfer. The ca= rds using the em=0A> driver do=0A> not support this feature. So I'm trying = to verify that the=0A> performance=0A> goes up when using hardware checksum= . But under attack,=0A> this is currently=0A> not the case... =0A> > =0A> >= Barney=0A=0AI usually try to find something that actually works before I w= orry=0Aabout special features. But we all work differently.=0A=0ABarney=0A= =0A=0A
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?608024.81055.qm>