From owner-freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Tue Jun 25 17:52:56 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@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 3022B15D2981 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 17:52:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bjb@c.dk) Received: from outgoing-yousee-3.gl-mut-gbl.as8677.net (outgoing-yousee-3.gl-mut-gbl.as8677.net [193.201.76.63]) (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 B37196E4CF for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 17:52:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bjb@c.dk) Received: from filter.yousee.as8677.net (localhost [10.26.226.131]) by mwumf0305.yousee.as8677.net (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 45YDJr6yyrzrF8 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 19:52:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mwumf0305 (front03-smtp-abo-yousee.worldlinemail.net [10.26.226.131]) by mwumf0305.yousee.as8677.net (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 45YDJr6SbDzrF2 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 19:52:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mwumf0305 (front03-smtp-abo-yousee.worldlinemail.net [10.26.226.131]) (Authenticated sender: 120107804745) by mwumf0305.yousee.as8677.net (SMTP Server) with ESMTPA for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 19:52:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: Re: Very slow and inconsistent internal network speed (between, VM's on the same host) for FreeBSD 11.0+ as guest on, XCP-ng/XenServer To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org References: <12994df1-f847-ec92-aae8-43a32e59385f@darco.dk> From: Bjarne Blichfeldt Organization: BlichSoft Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 19:52:44 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-yse-mailing: LEGIT X-yse-spamcause: OK, (0)(0000)gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudeggdduudeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuvfffvedpggftfgfpufgfuefuveftkfeugfdpqfgfvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhfhokffffgggjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepuehjrghrnhgvuceulhhitghhfhgvlhguthcuoegsjhgssegtrdgukheqnecukfhppedutddrvdeirddvvdeirddufedunecurfgrrhgrmhephhgvlhhopehmfihumhhftdeftdehpdhinhgvthepuddtrddviedrvddviedrudefuddpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegsjhgssegtrdgukhdprhgtphhtthhopehfrhgvvggsshguqdigvghnsehfrhgvvggsshgurdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B37196E4CF X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.65 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:193.201.76.63/32]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; HAS_ORG_HEADER(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[fpo9.mail.dk]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[c.dk:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[c.dk,quarantine]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.99)[-0.986,0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:8677, ipnet:193.201.76.0/24, country:FR]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[c.dk:s=sela]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-xen@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; IP_SCORE(-0.65)[ipnet: 193.201.76.0/24(-1.81), asn: 8677(-1.45), country: FR(-0.01)] X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 17:52:56 -0000 oh yes, sorry I am using: 0:~ # xl info host                   : x0 release                : 4.12.14-lp150.12.64-default version                : #1 SMP Mon Jun 17 16:53:50 UTC 2019 (3edfd41) machine                : x86_64 nr_cpus                : 4 max_cpu_id             : 3 nr_nodes               : 1 cores_per_socket       : 4 threads_per_core       : 1 cpu_mhz                : 3192 hw_caps                : bfebfbff:77faf3bf:2c100800:00000021:00000001:000027ab:00000000:00000100 virt_caps              : hvm hvm_directio total_memory           : 32461 free_memory            : 5319 sharing_freed_memory   : 0 sharing_used_memory    : 0 outstanding_claims     : 0 free_cpus              : 0 xen_major              : 4 xen_minor              : 10 xen_extra              : .3_04-lp150.2.1 xen_version            : 4.10.3_04-lp150.2.1 xen_caps               : xen-3.0-x86_64 xen-3.0-x86_32p hvm-3.0-x86_32 hvm-3.0-x86_32p hvm-3.0-x86_64 xen_scheduler          : credit xen_pagesize           : 4096 platform_params        : virt_start=0xffff800000000000 xen_changeset          : xen_commandline        : dom0_mem=3072M,max:3072M cc_compiler            : gcc (SUSE Linux) 7.4.0 cc_compile_by          : abuild cc_compile_domain      : suse.de cc_compile_date        : Thu May  9 16:10:08 UTC 2019 build_id               : bf77d035ff05eb55d9616e418f73cbcbd96f747b xend_config_format     : 4 Since you peaked my interest, I tryed playing around a little. Initially to day, the retransmits where between 4-15   retransmits. I then changed the network interface from hypervisor default to  E1000 (still xn0 in freebsd) and the retransmits jumped up to 700 to 800! After changing the network interface back to hypervisor default, the number of retranmits remains high in the 3-digit area.  Fooling around with mtu size did not change anything. Something is not quite right. On 6/24/19 10:24 PM, Christian M wrote: > Thanks for your input Bjarne. > > Previously I tested with iperf2, but I have made som tests with iperf3 now > also and noticed there are a lot of "Retr" (TCP retries) in some cases. > Went back here to your post and saw that your results also showed a lot of > retries in some cases. My new tests showed similar results to yours > (although not nearly as hi throughput as you have). When Linux is client > the retries are 0, with FreeBSD as client the number is > 0. I'm not sure > if our numbers are considered high though, and something that actually is a > problem? Although, on a internal network with no external factors like > interference, I feel this should always be 0 no matter what? > > What hypervisor were you running in your tests? Version? > > Regards, > Christian > > > Den mån 24 juni 2019 kl 17:56 skrev Bjarne : > >> Well, to add some datapoints, I just did a quick test om my private >> homeserver, testing with iperf3 >> -s / iperf3 -c >> >> I have not much knowledge of iperf3 network test and it's validity, but >> there is definitely some >> differences to be seen. >> >> Summary: >> >> FBSD <-> FBSD 3,5Gbit/sec >> FBSD -> Centos: 3GBit/Sec >> Centos -> FBSD: 12 Gbit/sec >> :snip >> >> >> -- mvh, Bjarne