From nobody Thu Nov 3 18:20:54 2022 X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4N3BsL0qkRz4gM3q for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 18:21:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:1::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smarthost1.sentex.ca", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4N3BsK0fk1z44Cg for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 18:21:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from pyroxene2a.sentex.ca (pyroxene19.sentex.ca [199.212.134.19]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 2A3IKsPv037284 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 3 Nov 2022 14:20:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from [IPV6:2607:f3e0:0:4:8d08:ffbe:d530:da9d] ([IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:8d08:ffbe:d530:da9d]) by pyroxene2a.sentex.ca (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 2A3IKrvj006162 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 3 Nov 2022 14:20:53 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-ID: <63424978-a10f-a88b-2b3e-eb80d0f29f51@sentex.net> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 14:20:54 -0400 List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-performance List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.1 Subject: Re: Chelsio Forwarding performance and RELENG_13 vs RELENG_12 (solved) Content-Language: en-US From: mike tancsa To: Navdeep Parhar , Freebsd performance References: <7b86e3fe-62e4-7b3e-f4bf-30e4894db9db@sentex.net> <92cdf4b8-2209-ec44-8151-a59b9e8f1504@gmail.com> <8166abfe-a796-2cf0-ade2-de08df8eecd2@gmail.com> <39ca9375-e742-618e-5020-dda5fa24ac0a@sentex.net> In-Reply-To: <39ca9375-e742-618e-5020-dda5fa24ac0a@sentex.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 64.7.153.18 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4N3BsK0fk1z44Cg X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of mike@sentex.net designates 2607:f3e0:0:1::12 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mike@sentex.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.40 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2607:f3e0::/32]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[199.212.134.19:received]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com,freebsd.org]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11647, ipnet:2607:f3e0::/32, country:CA]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-performance@freebsd.org]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[mike]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[sentex.net]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; ARC_NA(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On 10/21/2022 2:45 PM, mike tancsa wrote: > On 10/21/2022 2:30 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote: >> On 10/21/22 11:15 AM, mike tancsa wrote: >>> On 10/21/2022 2:13 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote: >>>> >>>>>> hw.cxgbe.ntxq=4 >>>>>> hw.cxgbe.nrxq=4 >>>>>> >>>>> Thanks Navdeep! >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, still the odd dropped packet :( >>>> >>>> Can you try increasing the size of the queues? >>>> >>>> hw.cxgbe.qsize_txq=2048 >>>> hw.cxgbe.qsize_rxq=2048 >>>> >>>> The stats show that you are using MTU 1500.  If you were using MTU >>>> 9000 I'd also have suggested setting largest_rx_cluster to 4K. >>>> >>>> hw.cxgbe.largest_rx_cluster=4096 >>>> >>> Thanks again, just 1500 MTU.  Shall I keep nt and nrxq at 4 still ? >> >> Yes, I think 4 queues are enough for 10G. >> > Sadly, no luck. Still about the same rate of overflows :( > > FYI, I worked around the issue by using two 520-CR NICs instead of the one 540-CR NIC and performance is solid again with no dropped packets     ---Mike