netdev - Re: packetloss, on e1000e worse than r8169?

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: <4856DB1D.80503@cosmosbay.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:29:01 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Denys Fedoryshchenko <denys@...p.net.lb>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: packetloss, on e1000e worse than r8169?

Denys Fedoryshchenko a écrit :
>> Are you sure nf_conntrack or ip route cache is not killing you ?
>>
>> Filling 512 or 1024 RX ring on Gigabit link can be very fast, especially 
>> if ip route cache is full.
>>
>> rtstat -c10 -i1
> 
> conntrack disabled, it is just enabled for second on load and then unloaded.

ok :)

> 
> MegaRouter-KARAM ~ # rtstat -c10 -i1
> rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|
>  entries|  in_hit|in_slow_|in_slow_|in_no_ro|  in_brd|in_marti|in_marti|
> out_hit|out_slow|out_slow|gc_total|gc_ignor|gc_goal_|gc_dst_o|in_hlist|out_hlis|
>         |        |     tot|      mc|     ute|        |  an_dst|  an_src|     
>   |    _tot|     _mc|        |      ed|    miss| verflow| _search|t_search|
>    63448|229209146|22225578|   13754|      12|    2822|       0|     104|  
> 54647|   27606|     570|21782075|21776859|      74|       0|215222374|   61294|
>    66085|  141462|    5268|       8|       0|       4|       0|       0|     
>  4|       2|       0|    5274|    5274|       0|       0|  254424|      10|
>    59947|  132660|   20570|       4|       0|       4|       0|       0|     
>  8|      14|       0|   20584|   20584|       0|       0|  185738|      24|
>    56995|  132416|   16918|      12|       0|       2|       0|       0|     
>  6|       4|       0|   16932|   16932|       0|       0|   68378|       8|
>    56422|  137058|   12336|       8|       0|       0|       0|       0|     
>  8|       2|       0|   12344|   12344|       0|       0|   84022|       4|
>    56819|  140526|    9896|      10|       0|       0|       0|       0|     
>  6|       0|       0|    9898|    9896|       0|       0|   99138|       4|
>    57580|  136936|    8370|      10|       0|       2|       0|       0|     
>  8|       6|       2|    8378|    8378|       0|       0|  110834|      22|
>    51583|  120138|   26828|      20|       0|       0|       0|       0|     
>  4|       8|       0|   26848|   26848|       0|       0|   99292|      24|
>    49354|  128076|   21606|      14|       0|       2|       0|       0|     
>  0|      10|       0|   21626|   21626|       0|       0|   60546|      12|
> 
> 
> 

Hum... typical IP route cache congestion ?

echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/gc_interval
echo 2 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/gc_elasticity

You might want to boot with rhash_entries=131071 to play with IP route cache size, but I am not sure your workload can fit.




--
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