[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51DD7B4D.3060509@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:18:37 -0700
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
CC: Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: A performance regression of gretap
On 07/10/2013 03:01 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> Hi, Pravin
>
> I just noticed the performance over gretap is very bad,
> which is probably caused by your GRE refactor patches.
>
> See below:
>
> # netperf -4 -H 192.168.2.1
> MIGRATED TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.2.1 () port 0 AF_INET
> Recv Send Send
> Socket Socket Message Elapsed
> Size Size Size Time Throughput
> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
>
> 87380 16384 16384 14.01 0.02
>
> Could you please take a look? And, gre tunnel is fine, this
> problem only exists for gretap. I reviewed the gretap code,
> but can't find any bug.
>
> It is very easy to reproduce, just setup a gretap device
> on both ends, and run netperf over it.
One way to provide more information from the netperf level in future
endeavours would be to extend the command line a bit:
netperf -4 -H 192.168.2.1 -c -C -- -o
throughput,local_sd,remote_ds,local_transport_retrans
and then again sans gretap. The -c/-C and [local|remote]_sd would be to
show the difference in path length, local_transport_retrans to see what
sort of difference there is in retransmissions.
happy benchmarking,
rick jones
--
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