| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:26:04 -0500 From: Simon Chen <simonchennj@...il.com> To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com> Cc: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: under-performing bonded interfaces Hi folks, I added an Intel X520 card to both the sender and receiver... Now I have two 10G ports on a PCIe 2.0 x8 slot (5Gx8), so the bandwidth of the PCI bus shouldn't be the bottleneck. Now the throughput test gives me around 16Gbps in aggregate. Any ideas how I can push closer to 20G? I don't quite understand where the bottleneck is now. Thanks. -Simon On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 20:38 -0500, Simon Chen wrote: >> Thanks, Ben. That's good discovery... >> >> Are you saying that both 10G NICs are on the same PCIe x4 slot, so >> that they're subject to the 12G throughput bottleneck? > > I assumed you were using 2 ports on the same board, i.e. the same slot. > If you were using 1 port each of 2 boards then I would have expected > them both to be usable at full speed. So far as I can remember, PCIe > bridges are usually set up so there isn't contention for bandwidth > between slots. > > Ben. > > -- > Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare > Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. > They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked. > -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists