Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:16:48 +0200 From: Stefan Lambrev <stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com> To: Andrew Thompson <thompsa@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: network performance Message-ID: <47A780C0.2060201@moneybookers.com> In-Reply-To: <20080204182945.GA49276@heff.fud.org.nz> References: <4794E6CC.1050107@moneybookers.com> <47A0B023.5020401@moneybookers.com> <m21w7x5ilg.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <47A3074A.3040409@moneybookers.com> <47A72EAB.6070602@moneybookers.com> <20080204182945.GA49276@heff.fud.org.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Thompson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:26:35PM +0200, Stefan Lambrev wrote: > >> Greetings, >> >> In my desire to increase network throughput, and to be able to handle more >> then ~250-270kpps >> I started experimenting with lagg and link aggregation control protocol >> (lacp). >> To my surprise this doesn't increase the amount of packets my server can >> handle >> >> Using lagg doesn't improve situation at all, and also errors are not >> reported. >> Also using lagg increased content switches: >> >> Top showed for CPU states +55% system, which is quite high? >> >> I'll use hwpmc and lock_profiling to see where the kernel spends it's time. >> > > Thanks for investigating this. One thing to note is that ip flows from > the same connection always go down the same interface, this is because > Ethernet is not allowed to reorder frames. The hash uses > src-mac, dst-mac, src-ip and dst-ip (see lagg_hashmbuf), make sure when > performance testing that your traffic varies in these values. Adding > tcp/udp ports to the hashing may help. > The traffic, that I generate is with random/spoofed src part, so it is split between interfaces for sure :) Here you can find results when under load from hwpmc and lock_profiling: http://89.186.204.158/lock_profiling-lagg.txt http://89.186.204.158/lagg-gprof.txt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47A780C0.2060201>