Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:41:53 -0300 From: Christopher Forgeron <csforgeron@gmail.com> To: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> Cc: Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il>, FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ix(intel) vs mlxen(mellanox) 10Gb performance Message-ID: <CAB2_NwBOLcL4EVjFN6=BvBC_YN=gmfZMweVbmb5ZPCsK4Hnx1g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20150817094145.GB3158@zxy.spb.ru> References: <1D52028A-B39F-4F9B-BD38-CB1D73BF5D56@cs.huji.ac.il> <20150817094145.GB3158@zxy.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
FYI, I can regularly hit 9.3 Gib/s with my Intel X520-DA2's and FreeBSD 10.1. Before 10.1 it was less. I used to tweak the card settings, but now it's just stock. You may want to check your settings, the Mellanox may just have better defaults for your switch. On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:27:41AM +0300, Daniel Braniss wrote: > > > hi, > > I have a host (Dell R730) with both cards, connected to an HP8200 > switch at 10Gb. > > when writing to the same storage (netapp) this is what I get: > > ix0: ~130MGB/s > > mlxen0 ~330MGB/s > > this is via nfs/tcpv3 > > > > I can get similar (bad) performance with the mellanox if I > increase the file size > > to 512MGB. > > Look like mellanox have internal beffer for caching and do ACK acclerating. > > > so at face value, it seems the mlxen does a better use of > resources than the intel. > > Any ideas how to improve ix/intel's performance? > > Are you sure about netapp performance? > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAB2_NwBOLcL4EVjFN6=BvBC_YN=gmfZMweVbmb5ZPCsK4Hnx1g>