Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:52:23 -0700 From: Navdeep Parhar <nparhar@gmail.com> To: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>, FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 10G performance regression / difference cxl and ix RELENG11 vs HEAD Message-ID: <b02d8705-3901-8a0b-0059-7e5bb6a3d1c6@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19e8a60d-e2a4-691c-c208-48c123c66bb7@sentex.net> References: <19e8a60d-e2a4-691c-c208-48c123c66bb7@sentex.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/12/18 8:37 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote: > I was doing a quick iperf test with=C2=A0 r339328 GENERIC-NODEBUG=C2=A0= amd64, and > noticed=C2=A0 I can no longer saturate a 10G nic with iperf3.=C2=A0 I t= ried first > with the ix adapter, but was not sure if it was the driver or not. I > tried as well with a Chelsio and got similar numbers. >=20 > # iperf3 -c 192.168.242.3 > Connecting to host 192.168.242.3, port 5201 > [=C2=A0 5] local 192.168.242.2 port 50474 connected to 192.168.242.3 po= rt 5201 > [ ID] Interval=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Transfer=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Bitrate=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Retr=C2=A0 Cwnd > [=C2=A0 5]=C2=A0=C2=A0 0.00-1.00=C2=A0=C2=A0 sec=C2=A0=C2=A0 997 MBytes= =C2=A0 8.36 Gbits/sec=C2=A0 717=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 175 > KBytes=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > [=C2=A0 5]=C2=A0=C2=A0 1.00-2.00=C2=A0=C2=A0 sec=C2=A0=C2=A0 975 MBytes= =C2=A0 8.18 Gbits/sec=C2=A0 668=C2=A0=C2=A0 41.1 > KBytes=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > [=C2=A0 5]=C2=A0=C2=A0 2.00-3.00=C2=A0=C2=A0 sec=C2=A0=C2=A0 880 MBytes= =C2=A0 7.38 Gbits/sec=C2=A0 846=C2=A0=C2=A0 25.6 > KBytes=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > [=C2=A0 5]=C2=A0=C2=A0 3.00-4.00=C2=A0=C2=A0 sec=C2=A0=C2=A0 523 MBytes= =C2=A0 4.39 Gbits/sec=C2=A0 802=C2=A0=C2=A0 59.8 > KBytes=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > [=C2=A0 5]=C2=A0=C2=A0 4.00-5.00=C2=A0=C2=A0 sec=C2=A0=C2=A0 520 MBytes= =C2=A0 4.36 Gbits/sec=C2=A0 882=C2=A0=C2=A0 48.4 > KBytes=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > [=C2=A0 5]=C2=A0=C2=A0 5.00-6.00=C2=A0=C2=A0 sec=C2=A0=C2=A0 543 MBytes= =C2=A0 4.55 Gbits/sec=C2=A0 838=C2=A0=C2=A0 56.9 > KBytes=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > [=C2=A0 5]=C2=A0=C2=A0 6.00-7.00=C2=A0=C2=A0 sec=C2=A0=C2=A0 556 MBytes= =C2=A0 4.66 Gbits/sec=C2=A0 850=C2=A0=C2=A0 11.4 > KBytes=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > [=C2=A0 5]=C2=A0=C2=A0 7.00-8.00=C2=A0=C2=A0 sec=C2=A0=C2=A0 538 MBytes= =C2=A0 4.51 Gbits/sec=C2=A0 795=C2=A0=C2=A0 39.9 > KBytes=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > [=C2=A0 5]=C2=A0=C2=A0 8.00-9.00=C2=A0=C2=A0 sec=C2=A0=C2=A0 540 MBytes= =C2=A0 4.53 Gbits/sec=C2=A0 853=C2=A0=C2=A0 57.0 > KBytes=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > [=C2=A0 5]=C2=A0=C2=A0 9.00-10.00=C2=A0 sec=C2=A0=C2=A0 503 MBytes=C2=A0= 4.22 Gbits/sec=C2=A0 814=C2=A0=C2=A0 59.8 > KBytes=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > [ ID] Interval=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Transfer=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Bitrate=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Retr > [=C2=A0 5]=C2=A0=C2=A0 0.00-10.00=C2=A0 sec=C2=A0 6.42 GBytes=C2=A0 5.5= 2 Gbits/sec=C2=A0 8065=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > sender > [=C2=A0 5]=C2=A0=C2=A0 0.00-10.00=C2=A0 sec=C2=A0 6.42 GBytes=C2=A0 5.5= 2 Gbits/sec=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > receiver The number of retries (the "Retr" column) should have been 0 in a controlled test like this. Is this the default stack with all default parameters or have you tuned TCP and/or sockets in any way? Regards, Navdeep
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b02d8705-3901-8a0b-0059-7e5bb6a3d1c6>