Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 19:33:01 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Michael_T=FCxen?= <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> To: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Subject: Re: igb interrupt moderation Message-ID: <C213F93A-2A94-4189-A59C-515DF3EBC112@lurchi.franken.de> In-Reply-To: <608024.81055.qm@web63904.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <608024.81055.qm@web63904.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Jan 3, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Barney Cordoba wrote: > --- On Sun, 1/3/10, Michael Tüxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> wrote: > >> From: Michael Tüxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> >> Subject: Re: igb interrupt moderation >> To: "Barney Cordoba" <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> >> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, "Mike Tancsa" <mike@sentex.net> >> Date: Sunday, January 3, 2010, 12:14 PM >> On Jan 3, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Barney >> Cordoba wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> --- On Sun, 1/3/10, Michael Tüxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> >> wrote: >>> >>>> From: Michael Tüxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> >>>> Subject: Re: igb interrupt moderation >>>> To: "Mike Tancsa" <mike@sentex.net> >>>> Cc: "Barney Cordoba" <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com>, >> jfvogel@gmail.com, >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org >>>> Date: Sunday, January 3, 2010, 11:38 AM >>>> On Jan 3, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Mike >>>> Tancsa wrote: >>>> >>>>> At 11:13 AM 1/3/2010, Michael Tüxen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just a separate datapoint about this >> driver, >>>> unless I apply >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/igb/igb.buf.patch6 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the driver is not really usable for me >> in >>>> RELENG_8 on the dual port version of the card >>>>>> Could you elaborate on what you mean by >> "not >>>> really usable"? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> Some >> link state issues >>>> (getting confused about what port is up), problems >> at high >>>> packet rates. I dont have this card in >> production, but >>>> in my test environment it was much more stable on >> RELENG_8 >>>> with the above patch in that I was not able to >> wedge the >>>> box. pps rates were pretty ok on a low end >> i7 as >>>> well. >>>> Thanks for the information. I'll give it a try. I >> have a >>>> problem when I flood >>>> a system with SCTP INITs. The system under attack >> becomes >>>> completely unresponsive >>>> on the console. However, it continues to send >> INIT-ACKs >>>> back. After the last >>>> commit from Jack it recovers after the attack. Not >> yet sure >>>> what is going on. >>>> Using the em driver does not have the problem. >> However, >>>> when using the em >>>> driver only one core is fully used, when using the >> igb >>>> driver both cores are fully >>>> used. Unfortunately I do not have a more than dual >> core >>>> machine available for >>>> this testing... >>> >>> Try em and lower the interrupt moderation to something >> like 500 (about >>> 100 packets per int is good). The latency isn't going >> to be noticable and >>> you'll see your cpu burden reduced quite a bit. >> I'll try. Thanks. >>> >>> Are you using a single NIC on a server, or do you have >> a firewall or >>> bridge? >> The system is a sender/receiver for SCTP. I'm interested in >> the 82576 >> since it provides checksum offloading for it. I use one or >> two ports >> for simultaneous data transfer. The cards using the em >> driver do >> not support this feature. So I'm trying to verify that the >> performance >> goes up when using hardware checksum. But under attack, >> this is currently >> not the case... >>> >>> Barney > > I usually try to find something that actually works before I worry > about special features. But we all work differently. ... I want to make sure that the SCTP stuff works. So others can "just use it". SCTP checksum offloading is one important feature... > > Barney > > > >help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C213F93A-2A94-4189-A59C-515DF3EBC112>