[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220325224654.00007cba@tom.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 22:46:54 +0800
From: Mingbao Sun <sunmingbao@....com>
To: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
tyler.sun@...l.com, ping.gan@...l.com, yanxiu.cai@...l.com,
libin.zhang@...l.com, ao.sun@...l.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] nvme-tcp: support specifying the
congestion-control
Hope the 3 combinations can support the claims in the commit message.
Since for the later 2 combinations, due to packet dropping and
timeout-retransmission, the bandwidth of each TX node could suddenly
drop a few hundred MB/S.
And on the RX node, the total bandwidth can not reach to the full link
bandwidth (which is about 6 GB/S).
.
In contrast, for the first combination, the bandwidth of each TX node
is stable at ~ 2GB/S.
And on the RX node, the total bandwidth reached to the full link bandwidth.
And no packet dropping occurs on the 2 switches.
This is even competitive to the performance of RDMA.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists