From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Wed Jan 18 10:03:56 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@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 8CEE6CB5257; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:03:56 +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 4EA991CE1; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:03:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cTn5k-000Au2-Tc; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:03:44 +0300 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:03:44 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: "Eugene M. Zheganin" Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable Subject: Re: decent 40G network adapters Message-ID: <20170118100344.GH78888@zxy.spb.ru> References: <587F39E3.1060608@norma.perm.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <587F39E3.1060608@norma.perm.ru> 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-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:03:56 -0000 On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:48:19PM +0500, Eugene M. Zheganin wrote: > Hi. > > Could someone recommend a decent 40Gbit adapter that are proven to be > working under FreeBSD ? The intended purpose - iSCSI traffic, not much > pps, but rates definitely above 10G. I've tried Supermicro-manufactured > Intel XL710 ones (two boards, different servers - same sad story: > packets loss, server unresponsive, spikes), seems like they have a > problem in a driver (or firmware), and though Intel support states this > is because the Supermicro tampered with the adapter, I'm still > suspicious about ixl(4). I've also seen in the ML a guy reported the > exact same problem with ixl(4) as I have found. > > So, what would you say ? Chelsio ? I am use Chelsio and Solarflare. Not sure about you workload -- I am have 40K+ TCP connections, you workload need different tuning. Do you planed to utilise both ports? For this case you need PCIe 16x card. This is Chelsio T6 and Solarflare 9200.