| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4E8254DD.6020908@genband.com> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:57:33 -0600 From: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com> To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com> CC: "J.Hwan Kim" <frog1120@...il.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: intel 82599 multi-port performance On 09/27/2011 11:14 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote: > This more or less confirms what I was thinking. You are likely hitting > the PCIe limits of the adapters. The overhead for 64 byte packets is too > great and as a result you are exceeding the PCIe bandwidth available to > the adapter. In order to achieve line rate on both ports you would > likely need to increase your packet size to something along the lines of > 256 bytes so that the additional PCIe overhead only contributes 50% or > less to the total PCIe traffic across the bus. Then the 2.5Gb/s of > network traffic should consume less than 4.0GT/s of PCIe traffic. For some further information, according to the information here: http://shader.kaist.edu/packetshader/io_engine/benchmark/i3.html a dual-port 82599 controller with an i3 CPU can in fact handle sending *or* receiving (and then dropping) full line rate on both ports for minimum-sized packets. It can't do both though. The CPU used in tose tests isn't the greatest however, so it's tough to say where the bottleneck is. Chris -- Chris Friesen Software Developer GENBAND chris.friesen@...band.com www.genband.com -- 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