netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 0/10] bql: Byte Queue Limits

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 29 Nov 2011 05:23:10 +0100
From:	Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/10] bql: Byte Queue Limits

> In this test 100 netperf TCP_STREAMs were started to saturate the link.
> A single instance of a netperf TCP_RR was run with high priority set.
> Queuing discipline in pfifo_fast, NIC is e1000 with TX ring size set to
> 1024.  tps for the high priority RR is listed.
>
> No BQL, tso on: 3000-3200K bytes in queue: 36 tps
> BQL, tso on: 156-194K bytes in queue, 535 tps

> No BQL, tso off: 453-454K bytes int queue, 234 tps
> BQL, tso off: 66K bytes in queue, 914 tps


Jeeze. Under what circumstances is tso a win? I've always
had great trouble with it, as some e1000 cards do it rather badly.

I assume these are while running at GigE speeds?

What of 100Mbit? 10GigE? (I will duplicate your tests
at 100Mbit, but as for 10gigE...)

I would suggest TCP_MAERTS as well to saturate the
link in the other direction.

And then both TCP_STREAM and
TCP_MAERTS at the same time while doing RR.


-- 
Dave Täht
SKYPE: davetaht
US Tel: 1-239-829-5608
FR Tel: 0638645374
http://www.bufferbloat.net
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html