Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2019 15:49:05 -0700 From: Matthew Macy <mmacy@freebsd.org> To: Michael Butler <imb@protected-networks.net> Cc: Kris von Mach <mach@swishmail.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em performs worse than igb (latency wise) in 12? Message-ID: <CAPrugNqZVPWn4fu4tDEHc82rkeF3EXjSrvB7==8vF2D6_4EM5g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4f9b9259-f5a1-ecc6-366e-4a26de0ca3dc@protected-networks.net> References: <b910baa6-6428-67fa-5df4-49b777e770d1@swishmail.com> <7673edad-1e50-7e9b-961e-f28ab7a0f41e@ingresso.co.uk> <f4474976-37af-13cc-d8f6-771eef2c889e@swishmail.com> <4f9b9259-f5a1-ecc6-366e-4a26de0ca3dc@protected-networks.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 1:23 PM Michael Butler <imb@protected-networks.net> wrote: > > On 2019-04-06 08:58, Kris von Mach wrote: > > On 4/6/2019 2:56 AM, Pete French wrote: > >> 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: > > > > I ran apache bench, and I got a result of 100 requests/sec on 12-STABLE > > vs 16,000 requests/sec on 11-STABLE. So something is definitely wrong. > > Nothing changed other than going from 11 to 12. > > I'd be interested to see if substituting the port net/intel-em-kmod has > any effect on the issue, I would as well. igb, em, and lem are all the same driver in 12. This makes maintenance a lot easier. However, the older NICs have a lot of errata workarounds that aren't explicitly commented as such. My first guess is this card suffers from one such errata workaround that has been dropped in the update. -M
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPrugNqZVPWn4fu4tDEHc82rkeF3EXjSrvB7==8vF2D6_4EM5g>