Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:39:23 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> Cc: FreeBSD stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ix(intel) vs mlxen(mellanox) 10Gb performance Message-ID: <20150817113923.GK1872@zxy.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <197995E2-0C11-43A2-AB30-FBB0FB8CE2C5@cs.huji.ac.il> References: <1D52028A-B39F-4F9B-BD38-CB1D73BF5D56@cs.huji.ac.il> <20150817094145.GB3158@zxy.spb.ru> <197995E2-0C11-43A2-AB30-FBB0FB8CE2C5@cs.huji.ac.il>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 01:35:06PM +0300, Daniel Braniss wrote: > > > On Aug 17, 2015, at 12:41 PM, 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. > what ever they are doing, it's impressive :-) > > > > >> 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? > > yes, and why should it act differently if the request is coming from the same host? in any case > the numbers are quiet consistent since I have measured it from several hosts, and at different times. In any case, for 10Gb expect about 1200MGB/s. I see lesser speed. What netapp maximum performance? From other hosts, or local, any?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150817113923.GK1872>