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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080616214135.M36931@visp.net.lb>
Date:	Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:41:35 +0300
From:	"Denys Fedoryshchenko" <denys@...p.net.lb>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: packetloss, on e1000e worse than r8169?

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:29:01 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote
> >> 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
Doesn't help, nothing changed.

> 
> 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.
I will try it, but thats kind of difficult, i cannot reboot anymore near 30
minutes.
> 
> --
> 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


--
Denys Fedoryshchenko
Technical Manager
Virtual ISP S.A.L.

--
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