netdev - Re: e1000 full-duplex TCP performance well below wire speed

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]

Message-ID: <47A1B294.8080609@aei.mpg.de>
Date:	Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:35:48 +0100
From:	Carsten Aulbert <carsten.aulbert@....mpg.de>
To:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
CC:	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	Bruce Allen <ballen@...vity.phys.uwm.edu>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Henning Fehrmann <henning.fehrmann@....mpg.de>,
	Bruce Allen <bruce.allen@....mpg.de>
Subject: Re: e1000 full-duplex TCP performance well below wire speed

Good morning (my TZ),

I'll try to answer all questions, hoewver if I miss something big, 
please point my nose to it again.

Rick Jones wrote:
>> As asked in LKML thread, please post the exact netperf command used to
>> start the client/server, whether or not you're using irqbalanced (aka
>> irqbalance) and what cat /proc/interrupts looks like (you ARE using MSI,
>> right?)
> 
netperf was used without any special tuning parameters. Usually we start 
two processes on two hosts which start (almost) simultaneously, last for 
20-60 seconds and simply use UDP_STREAM (works well) and TCP_STREAM, i.e.

on 192.168.0.202: netperf -H 192.168.2.203 -t TCP_STREAL -l 20
on 192.168.0.203: netperf -H 192.168.2.202 -t TCP_STREAL -l 20

192.168.0.20[23] here is on eth0 which cannot do jumbo frames, thus we 
use the .2. part for eth1 for a range of mtus.

The server is started on both nodes with the start-stop-daemon and no 
special parameters I'm aware of.

/proc/interrupts shows me PCI_MSI-edge thus, I think YES.

> In particular, it would be good to know if you are doing two concurrent 
> streams, or if you are using the "burst mode" TCP_RR with large 
> request/response sizes method which then is only using one connection.
> 

As outlined above: Two concurrent streams right now. If you think TCP_RR 
should be better I'm happy to rerun some tests.

More in other emails.

I'll wade through them slowly.

Carsten
--
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