From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Fri Mar 17 10:35:39 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33F7D10DC2 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:35:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E001151A for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:35:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1coonu-000FtO-2N; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:08:14 +0300 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:08:14 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: John Jasen Cc: Navdeep Parhar , "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" , "Caraballo-vega, Jordan A." Subject: Re: bad throughput performance on multiple systems: Re: Fwd: Re: Disappointing packets-per-second performance results on a Dell,PE R530 Message-ID: <20170317100814.GN70430@zxy.spb.ru> References: <7d349edd-0c81-2e3f-d3b9-27af232de76d@gmail.com> <20170209153409.GG41673@dwarf> <6ad029e0-86c6-af3d-8fc3-694d4bcdc683@gmail.com> <20170312231826.GV15630@zxy.spb.ru> <74654520-b8b6-6118-2e46-902a8ea107ac@gmail.com> <173fffac-7ae2-786a-66c0-e9cd7ab78f44@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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, 17 Mar 2017 10:35:40 -0000 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 03:50:42PM -0400, John Jasen wrote: > As a few points of note, partial resolution, and curiosity: > > Following down leads that 11-STABLE had tryforward improvements over > 11-RELENG, I upgraded. The same tests (24 client streams over UDP with > small packets), the system went from passing 1.7m pps to about 2.5m. > > Following indications from Navdeep Parhar that UDP queue hashing is not as > efficient as it could be, we started running the tests with various powers > of 2 streams (2,4,8,16,32) -- and were able to push the system up to 5m pps. > > We are currently seeing in the tests approximately 10-11m pps on the > outside interface, around 5-6m dropped, and 5 million passed. You want more? > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:13 AM, John Jasen wrote: > > > On 03/13/2017 01:03 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 5:35 PM, John Jasen wrote: > > >>> UDP traffic. dmesg reports 16 txq, 8 rxq -- which is the default for > > >>> Chelsio. > > >>> > > >> I don't recall offhand, but UDP might be using 2-tuple hashing by > > >> default and that might affect the distribution of flows across queues. > > >> Are there senders generating IP fragments by any chance (that'll > > >> depend on the "send size" that your UDP application is using)? > > > > > > No, they're not fragmenting. > > > > > >> Have you tried limiting the adapter's rx ithreads to the CPU that the > > >> PCIe slot with the adapter is wired to? > > > > > > Above and beyond the use of cpuset, you mean? > > > > I meant cpuset. > > > > If possible, try your experiments on a single socket system. > > > > Regards, > > Navdeep > >