From owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Fri Feb 5 18:19:43 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06E46A9D753 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 18:19:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from allanjude@freebsd.org) Received: from mx1.scaleengine.net (mx1.scaleengine.net [209.51.186.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA681AA7 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 18:19:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from allanjude@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (unknown [192.168.1.10]) (Authenticated sender: allanjude.freebsd@scaleengine.com) by mx1.scaleengine.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 401F5DFED for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 18:19:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: ixgbe: Network performance tuning (#TCP connections) To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <56B23DEA.1060307@freebsd.org> From: Allan Jude Message-ID: <56B4E7B0.9010509@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 13:19:28 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 18:19:43 -0000 On 2016-02-05 13:05, Meyer, Wolfgang wrote: > > > As I was telling in my original message, the rxd and txd values were more or less the only ones that changed my numbers to the better when reducing them. Not that I understood that behaviour but a double-check now revealed that I stand corrected on this observation. Raising the value (to 1024) now did not only degrade througput to my original bad numbers but to the opposite slightly improved it (but only barely measurable compared to measurement variation). Don't know what cross interaction was leading to my original observation. > > Concerning pcb hash table size I only found net.inet.sctp.pcbhashsize and that had no influence. Not sure whether sctp plays a role at all in my problem. > > Regards, > Wolfgang Meyer > > I think the one you are looking for is: net.inet.tcp.tcbhashsize See if doubling that makes a difference. -- Allan Jude