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  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]
Date:	Thu, 19 May 2011 17:46:17 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: TCP funny-ness when over-driving a 1Gbps link.

On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 17:37 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 05/19/2011 05:24 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
> >>>> [root@...965-1 igb]# netstat -an|grep tcp|grep 8.1.1
> >>>> tcp        0      0 8.1.1.1:33038               0.0.0.0:*                   LISTEN
> >>>> tcp        0      0 8.1.1.1:33040               0.0.0.0:*                   LISTEN
> >>>> tcp        0      0 8.1.1.1:33042               0.0.0.0:*                   LISTEN
> >>>> tcp        0 9328612 8.1.1.2:33039               8.1.1.1:33040               ESTABLISHED
> >>>> tcp        0 17083176 8.1.1.1:33038               8.1.1.2:33037               ESTABLISHED
> >>>> tcp        0 9437340 8.1.1.2:33037               8.1.1.1:33038               ESTABLISHED
> >>>> tcp        0 17024620 8.1.1.1:33040               8.1.1.2:33039               ESTABLISHED
> >>>> tcp        0 19557040 8.1.1.1:33042               8.1.1.2:33041               ESTABLISHED
> >>>> tcp        0 9416600 8.1.1.2:33041               8.1.1.1:33042               ESTABLISHED
> >>>
> >>> I take it your system has higher values for the tcp_wmem value:
> >>>
> >>> net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 16384 4194304
> >>
> >> Yes:
> >> [root@...965-1 igb]# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_wmem
> >> 4096	16384	50000000
> >
> > Why?!?  Are you trying to get link-rate to Mars or something?  (I assume
> > tcp_rmem is similarly set...)  If you are indeed doing one 1 GbE, and no
> > more than 100ms then the default (?) of 4194304 should have been more
> > than sufficient.
> 
> Well, we occasionally do tests over emulated links that have several
> seconds of delay and may be running multiple Gbps.  Either way,
> I'd hope that offering extra RAM to a subsystem wouldn't cause it
> to go nuts.  

It has been my experience that the autotuning tends to grow things
beyond the bandwidthXdelay product.

As for several seconds of delay and multiple Gbps - unless you are
shooting the Moon, sounds like bufferbloat?-)

> Assuming this isn't some magical 1Gbps issue, you
> could probably hit the same problem with a wifi link and
> default tcp_wmem settings...

Do you also increase tx queue's for the NIC(s)?

rick

--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists