Date: 29 Sep 2008 16:12:56 +0200 From: "Arno J. Klaassen" <arno@heho.snv.jussieu.fr> To: pyunyh@gmail.com Cc: stable@freebsd.org, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 7.1-PRERELEASE : bad network performance (nfe0) Message-ID: <wpy71bavmf.fsf@heho.snv.jussieu.fr> In-Reply-To: <20080929043134.GD54819@cdnetworks.co.kr> References: <wptzc1gu9v.fsf@heho.snv.jussieu.fr> <20080929043134.GD54819@cdnetworks.co.kr>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Dear Pyun, thanx for your prompt answer (as usual). Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:21:00PM +0200, Arno J. Klaassen wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > I've serious network performance problems on a HP Turion X2 > > based brand new notebook; I only used a 7-1Beta CD and > > 7-STABLE on this thing. > > > > Scp-ing ports.tgz from a rock-stable 7-STABLE server to it gives : > > > > # scp -p ports.tgz login@mv:/tmp/ > > ports.tgz 100% 98MB 88.7KB/s 18:49 > > > > (doing the same thing by copy from an nfs-mounted disk even > > takes mores than an hour ...) > > > > > > Doing a top(1) aside, just shows the box 100% idle : > > > > PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND > > 12 root 171 ki31 0K 16K CPU0 0 38:55 100.00% idle: cpu0 > > 11 root 171 ki31 0K 16K RUN 1 38:55 100.00% idle: cpu1 > > 13 root -32 - 0K 16K WAIT 0 0:02 0.00% swi4: clock sio > > 29 root -68 - 0K 16K - 0 0:00 0.00% nfe0 taskq > > 34 root -64 - 0K 16K WAIT 1 0:00 0.00% irq23: atapci1 > > 1853 root 8 0 7060K 1920K wait 0 0:00 0.00% sh > > 878 nono 44 0 8112K 2288K CPU1 1 0:00 0.00% top > > 884 root 8 - 0K 16K - 1 0:00 0.00% nfsiod 0 > > 4 root -8 - 0K 16K - 1 0:00 0.00% g_down > > 16 root -16 - 0K 16K - 1 0:00 0.00% yarrow > > 46 root 20 - 0K 16K syncer 0 0:00 0.00% syncer > > 3 root -8 - 0K 16K - 0 0:00 0.00% g_up > > 30 root -68 - 0K 16K - 0 0:00 0.00% fw0_taskq > > > > > > I tested : > > > > Update Bios > > ULE /4BSD > > PREEMPTION on/off > > PREEMPTION + IPI_PREEMPTION > > hw.nfe.msi[x]_disable=1 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > This has no effect as MCP65 lacks MSI/MSI-X capability. > > > > All don't seem to matter to the problem. > > > > I put two tcpdumps (server and client during another scp(1) ) on > > http://bare.snv.jussieu.fr/temp/tcpdump-s1518.server > > http://bare.snv.jussieu.fr/temp/tcpdump-s1518.client > > > > I'm far from an expert on TCP/IP, but wireshark "expert info" shows > > lots of sequences like : > > > > TCP Previous segment lost > > TCP Duplicate ACK 1 > > TCP Window update > > TCP Duplicate ACK 2 > > TCP Duplicate ACK 3 > > TCP Duplicate ACK 4 > > TCP Duplicate ACK 5 > > TCP Fast retransmission (suspected) > > TCP ... > > TCP Out-of-Order segment > > TCP ... > > > > > > As usual, feel free to contact me for further info/tests. > > > > AFAIK it seems that you're the first one that reports poor > performance issue of MCP65. someone must be ;) no kiddin, I am not convinced this is (only) a driver issue (cf. "bad NFS/UDP performance" thread on -hackers). I just have no experience on this notebook, so I can't say " it worked great before" and my only other 7-stable-amd64 I have does not show the probs, having a cheap re0 *and* being UP. > MCP65 has no checksum offload/TSO > capability so nfe(4) never try to take advantage of the hardware > capability. So you should have no checksum offload/TSO related > issue here. > Also note, checking network performance with scp(1) wouldn't > show real numbers as scp(1) may involve other system activities. > Use one of network benchmark programs in ports(e.g. > benchmarks/netperf) to measure network performance. quite funny (even taken with lots of salt since the LAN is used for "normal work" as well in parallel, but differences are rather significant) : I test to same server (7-stable-amd64 from Jun 7 (using nfe0 as well btw, but another chip), either from a 6-stable-x86 (Jul 14, sk0) or the notebook (7-stable-x64 below), using for i in <SOME-TESTS> ; do echo $i; /usr/local/bin/netperf -H push -i 4,2 -I 95,10 -t $i; echo; done streaming results are OK for both : TCP_STREAM Throughput 10^6bits/sec 6-stable-x86 349.57 7-stable-x64 939.47 UDP_STREAM Throughput 10^6bits/sec 6-stable-x86 388.45 7-stable-x64 947.89 However, the "request/respones" tests are awfull for my notebook (test repeated on the notebook for the sake of conviction) : TCP_RR Trans. Rate per sec 6-stable-x86 9801.58 7-stable-x64 137.61 7-stable-x64 89.35 7-stable-x64 102.29 TCP_CRR Trans. Rate per sec 6-stable-x86 4520.98 7-stable-x64 7.00 7-stable-x64 8.10 7-stable-x64 18.49 UDP_RR Trans. Rate per sec 6-stable-x86 9473.20 7-stable-x64 9.60 7-stable-x64 0.90 7-stable-x64 0.10 I can send you complete results if wanted. > Other possible cause of issue could be link speed/duplex mismatch > or excessive MAC control frames(e.g. pause frames). Does nfe(4) > agree on resolved speed/duplex with link partner? yes (1000baseTX <full-duplex>) > If they all agree on resolved speed/duplex, would you check number > of pause frames sent/received from link partner? Even though MCP65 > supports hardware MAC statistics for pause frames nfe(4) has no > support code yet so you may have to resort to managed switch that > can show Tx/Rx statistics of each port. aargh; I do have a Netgear GS724TS around where I can connect it to. This thing should be manageable, but give me some time to find out how .... Thanx, Arnohelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?wpy71bavmf.fsf>