netdev - Re: Flow Control and Port Mirroring Revisited

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: <20110121095929.GE26070@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:59:30 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Cc:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>, Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, dev@...nvswitch.org,
	virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Flow Control and Port Mirroring Revisited

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 05:38:33PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> [ Trimmed Eric from CC list as vger was complaining that it is too long ]
> 
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:41:22AM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
> > >So it won't be all that simple to implement well, and before we try,
> > >I'd like to know whether there are applications that are helped
> > >by it. For example, we could try to measure latency at various
> > >pps and see whether the backpressure helps. netperf has -b, -w
> > >flags which might help these measurements.
> > 
> > Those options are enabled when one adds --enable-burst to the
> > pre-compilation ./configure  of netperf (one doesn't have to
> > recompile netserver).  However, if one is also looking at latency
> > statistics via the -j option in the top-of-trunk, or simply at the
> > histogram with --enable-histogram on the ./configure and a verbosity
> > level of 2 (global -v 2) then one wants the very top of trunk
> > netperf from:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have constructed a test where I run an un-paced  UDP_STREAM test in
> one guest and a paced omni rr test in another guest at the same time.

Hmm, what is this supposed to measure?  Basically each time you run an
un-paced UDP_STREAM you get some random load on the network.
You can't tell what it was exactly, only that it was between
the send and receive throughput.

> Breifly I get the following results from the omni test..
> 
> 1. Omni test only:		MEAN_LATENCY=272.00
> 2. Omni and stream test:	MEAN_LATENCY=3423.00
> 3. cpu and net_cls group:	MEAN_LATENCY=493.00
>    As per 2 plus cgoups are created for each guest
>    and guest tasks added to the groups
> 4. 100Mbit/s class:		MEAN_LATENCY=273.00
>    As per 3 plus the net_cls groups each have a 100MBit/s HTB class
> 5. cpu.shares=128:		MEAN_LATENCY=652.00
>    As per 4 plus the cpu groups have cpu.shares set to 128
> 6. Busy CPUS:			MEAN_LATENCY=15126.00
>    As per 5 but the CPUs are made busy using a simple shell while loop
> 
> There is a bit of noise in the results as the two netperf invocations
> aren't started at exactly the same moment
> 
> For reference, my netperf invocations are:
> netperf -c -C -t UDP_STREAM -H 172.17.60.216 -l 12
> netperf.omni -p 12866 -D -c -C -H 172.17.60.216 -t omni -j -v 2 -- -r 1 -d rr -k foo -b 1 -w 200 -m 200
> 
> foo contains
> PROTOCOL
> THROUGHPUT,THROUGHPUT_UNITS
> LOCAL_SEND_THROUGHPUT
> LOCAL_RECV_THROUGHPUT
> REMOTE_SEND_THROUGHPUT
> REMOTE_RECV_THROUGHPUT
> RT_LATENCY,MIN_LATENCY,MEAN_LATENCY,MAX_LATENCY
> P50_LATENCY,P90_LATENCY,P99_LATENCY,STDDEV_LATENCY
> LOCAL_CPU_UTIL,REMOTE_CPU_UTIL
--
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