From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 18 18:18:38 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 C451266B; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:18:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pd0-x229.google.com (mail-pd0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89CE82FB4; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:18:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id y10so5473823pdj.28 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:18:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=I/wfJBWA56SOxl24a2TyVa4MKrrU78ZtbWfQoVuJHis=; b=VPW19GBZS/FjnqX3iMGzXhsAQXNKXiUBI6aZ52hFg18l8h29hHw8GPAXLaFcjggshW W2tqtiaWDA5U60pJAyCUi78M4aFp16gtWzc3QsCB7p+3+Dpd6ajlYPDSYvhRve8/5Po5 GImt9R/KsJcO7mSZ1KXl1yAvxaVb5jfIv+upiLtQnwbl/40dwkXwSXB4hm/WG/pPomTO AgduyZaPCb9GjiKQHLLJOluNZryZwegvWixraiMlKls8QneKdn0rCHDhp3IP+erbcI7t KzPDmVfDMBCeggORr/5VAQq9oq0oMowNX4e3p/2nK8DaKO1jCg+QkXmzyviqZ0DK4SAR OQQg== X-Received: by 10.69.12.33 with SMTP id en1mr7571950pbd.66.1405707518042; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.192.166.0] (stargate.chelsio.com. [67.207.112.58]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id xh10sm25630043pac.24.2014.07.18.11.18.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53C964F7.8060503@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:18:31 -0700 From: Navdeep Parhar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: araujo@FreeBSD.org, Adrian Chadd Subject: Re: [patch][lagg] - Set a better granularity and distribution on roundrobin protocol. References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Net X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:18:38 -0000 On 07/18/14 00:49, Marcelo Araujo wrote: > Hello guys, > > I made few changes on the lagg(4) patch. Also, I made tests using igb(4), > ixgbe(4) and em(4); seems everything worked pretty well. > > I'm wondering if anyone else could make a review, and what I need to do, to > see this patch committed. Deliberately putting out-of-order packets on the wire is never a good idea. This would count as a serious regression in lagg(4) imho. Regards, Navdeep > > Best Regards, > > > > > 2014-06-24 10:40 GMT+08:00 Marcelo Araujo : > >> >> >> 2014-06-24 6:54 GMT+08:00 Adrian Chadd : >> >> Hi, >>> >>> No, don't introduce out of order behaviour. Ever. >> >> >> Yes, it has out of order behavior; with my patch much less. I upload two >> pcap files and you can see by yourself, if you don't believe in what I'm >> talking about. >> >> Test done using: "iperf -s" and "iperf -c -i 1 -t 10". >> >> 1) Don't change the number of packets(default round robin behavior). >> http://people.freebsd.org/~araujo/lagg/lagg-nop.cap >> 8 out of order packets. >> Several SACKs. >> >> 2) Set the number of packets to 50. >> http://people.freebsd.org/~araujo/lagg/lagg.cap >> 0 out of order packets. >> Less SACKs. >> >> >>> You may not think >>> it's a problem for TCP, but UDP things and VPN things will start >>> getting very angry. There are VPN configurations out there that will >>> drop the VPN if frames are out of order. >>> >> >> I'm not thinking that will be a problem for TCP, but, in somehow it will >> be, less throughput as I showed before, and less SACK. About the VPN, >> please, tell me which softwares, and let me know where I can get a sample >> to make a testbed. >> >> However to be very honest, I don't believe anyone here when change >> something at network protocols will make this extensive testbed. It is >> almost impossible to predict what software it will works or not, and I >> don't believe anyone here has all these stuff in hands. >> >> >>> >>> The ixgbe driver is setting the flowid to the msix queue ID, rather >>> than a 32 bit unique flow id hash value for the flow. That makes it >>> hard to do traffic distribution where the flowid is available. >>> >> >> Thanks for the explanation. >> >> >>> >>> There's an lagg option to re-hash the mbuf rather than rely on the >>> flowid for outbound port choice - have you looked at using that? Did >>> that make any difference? >>> >> >> Yes, I set to 0 the net.link.lagg.0.use _flowid, it make a little >> difference to the default round robin implementation, but yet I can't reach >> more than 5 Gbit/s. With my patch and set the packets to 50, it improved a >> bit too. >> >> So, thank you so much for all review, I don't know if you have time and a >> testbed to make a real test, as I'm doing. I would be happy if you or more >> people could make tests on that patch. Also, I have only ixgbe(4) to make >> tests, would appreciate if this patch could be tested with other NICs too. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> -- >> Marcelo Araujo (__) >> araujo@FreeBSD.org \\\'',)http://www.FreeBSD.org \/ \ ^ >> Power To Server. .\. /_) >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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" >