netdev - Re: under-performing bonded interfaces

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]

Date:	Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:36:08 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	Simon Chen <simonchennj@...il.com>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: under-performing bonded interfaces

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:26:04 -0500
Simon Chen <simonchennj@...il.com> wrote:

> Hi folks,
> 
> I added an Intel X520 card to both the sender and receiver... Now I
> have two 10G ports on a PCIe 2.0 x8 slot (5Gx8), so the bandwidth of
> the PCI bus shouldn't be the bottleneck.
> 
> Now the throughput test gives me around 16Gbps in aggregate. Any ideas
> how I can push closer to 20G? I don't quite understand where the
> bottleneck is now.

In my experience, Intel dual port cards can not run at full speed
when both ports are in use. You need separate slots to hit full
line rate.
--
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