From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Fri Apr 5 18:57:03 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4778C1556E3B for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:57:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from petefrench@ingresso.co.uk) Received: from constantine.ingresso.co.uk (constantine.ingresso.co.uk [31.24.6.74]) (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 9A9606F1C3 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:57:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from petefrench@ingresso.co.uk) Received: from [82.47.240.30] (helo=foula.local) by constantine.ingresso.co.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1hCU1E-000DTO-NC for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Fri, 05 Apr 2019 18:56:52 +0000 Subject: Re: em performs worse than igb (latency wise) in 12? To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: From: Pete French Message-ID: <7673edad-1e50-7e9b-961e-f28ab7a0f41e@ingresso.co.uk> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 19:56:51 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:67.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/67.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 9A9606F1C3 X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=ingresso.co.uk; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of petefrench@ingresso.co.uk designates 31.24.6.74 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=petefrench@ingresso.co.uk X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.62 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.88)[-0.884,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:31.24.6.74]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; IP_SCORE(-0.09)[asn: 16082(-0.36), country: GB(-0.09)]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.17)[0.169,0]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com, us-smtp-inbound-2.mi mecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com,us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[ingresso.co.uk,none]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[30.240.47.82.zen.spamhaus.org : 127.0.0.11]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:16082, ipnet:31.24.0.0/21, country:GB]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 18:57:03 -0000 On 05/04/2019 16:01, Kris von Mach wrote: > I've upgraded from Stable 11 to Stable 12, and noticed that igb has been > removed and is now part of em driver. However, the performance seems a > lot worse. This is using HP 366FLR which is just HP's version of Intel > i350 I believe. Something odd going on there there - I am using 12-STABLE and I have igb just fine, and it attaches to the same hardware that 11 did: ... [petefrench@dilbert ~]$ ssh turpentine Last login: Fri Apr 5 18:52:50 2019 from 2a02:b90:3002:411::6 FreeBSD 12.0-STABLE r343538 GENERIC Baby baby turpentine... [webadmin@turpentine ~]$ ifconfig igb0 igb0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 options=e507bb ether ac:1f:6b:46:5e:32 inet 10.32.10.5 netmask 0xffff0000 broadcast 10.32.255.255 inet6 fe80::ae1f:6bff:fe46:5e32%igb0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet6 2a02:1658:1:2:e550::5 prefixlen 64 media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT ) status: active nd6 options=21 Do you have a custom kernel, and if so did you see this note in UPDATING? 20170109: The igb(4), em(4) and lem(4) ethernet drivers are now implemented via IFLIB. If you have a custom kernel configuration that excludes em(4) but you use igb(4), you need to re-add em(4) to your custom configuration.