ix(intel) vs mlxen(mellanox) 10Gb performance

[Slawa Olhovchenkov]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 01:35:06PM +0300, Daniel Braniss wrote:

> 
> > On Aug 17, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw at zxy.spb.ru> wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:27:41AM +0300, Daniel Braniss wrote:
> > 
> >> hi,
> >> 	I have a host (Dell R730) with both cards, connected to an HP8200 switch at 10Gb.
> >> 	when writing to the same storage (netapp) this is what I get:
> >> 		ix0:		~130MGB/s
> >> 		mlxen0	~330MGB/s
> >> 	this is via nfs/tcpv3
> >> 
> >> 	I can get similar (bad) performance with the mellanox if I increase the file size
> >> 	to 512MGB.
> > 
> > Look like mellanox have internal beffer for caching and do ACK acclerating.
> what ever they are doing, it's impressive :-)
> 
> > 
> >> 	so at face value, it seems the mlxen does a better use of resources than the intel.
> >> 	Any ideas how to improve ix/intel's performance?
> > 
> > Are you sure about netapp performance?
> 
> yes, and why should it act differently if the request is coming from the same host? in any case
> the numbers are quiet consistent since I have measured it from several hosts, and at different times.

In any case, for 10Gb expect about 1200MGB/s.
I see lesser speed.
What netapp maximum performance? From other hosts, or local, any?