Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 19:56:51 +0100 From: Pete French <petefrench@ingresso.co.uk> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em performs worse than igb (latency wise) in 12? Message-ID: <7673edad-1e50-7e9b-961e-f28ab7a0f41e@ingresso.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <b910baa6-6428-67fa-5df4-49b777e770d1@swishmail.com> References: <b910baa6-6428-67fa-5df4-49b777e770d1@swishmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/04/2019 16:01, Kris von Mach wrote:
> I've upgraded from Stable 11 to Stable 12, and noticed that igb has been
> removed and is now part of em driver. However, the performance seems a
> lot worse. This is using HP 366FLR which is just HP's version of Intel
> i350 I believe.
Something odd going on there there - I am using 12-STABLE and I have igb
just fine, and it attaches to the same hardware that 11 did:
...
[petefrench@dilbert ~]$ ssh turpentine
Last login: Fri Apr 5 18:52:50 2019 from 2a02:b90:3002:411::6
FreeBSD 12.0-STABLE r343538 GENERIC
Baby baby turpentine...
[webadmin@turpentine ~]$ ifconfig igb0
igb0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500
options=e507bb<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,JUMBO_MTU,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4,TSO6,LRO,VLAN_HWFILTER,VLAN_HWTSO,RXCSUM_IPV6,TXCSUM_IPV6>
ether ac:1f:6b:46:5e:32
inet 10.32.10.5 netmask 0xffff0000 broadcast 10.32.255.255
inet6 fe80::ae1f:6bff:fe46:5e32%igb0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
inet6 2a02:1658:1:2:e550::5 prefixlen 64
media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>)
status: active
nd6 options=21<PERFORMNUD,AUTO_LINKLOCAL>
Do you have a custom kernel, and if so did you see this note in UPDATING?
20170109:
The igb(4), em(4) and lem(4) ethernet drivers are now
implemented via
IFLIB. If you have a custom kernel configuration that excludes
em(4)
but you use igb(4), you need to re-add em(4) to your custom
configuration.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7673edad-1e50-7e9b-961e-f28ab7a0f41e>