stefan.lambrev at moneybookers.com
Tue Feb 5 14:02:10 PST 2008
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Stefan Lambrev wrote:
>>>>> Thanks for investigating this. One thing to note is that ip flows
>>>>> the same connection always go down the same interface, this is
>>>>> Ethernet is not allowed to reorder frames. The hash uses
>>>>> src-mac, dst-mac, src-ip and dst-ip (see lagg_hashmbuf), make sure
>>>>> performance testing that your traffic varies in these values. Adding
>>>>> tcp/udp ports to the hashing may help.
>>>> The traffic, that I generate is with random/spoofed src part, so it
>>>> is split between interfaces for sure :)
>>>> Here you can find results when under load from hwpmc and
> OK, this shows the following major problems:
> 39 22375065 1500649 5690741 3 0 119007
> 712359 /usr/src/sys/net/route.c:147 (sleep mutex:radix node head)
> 21 3012732 1905704 1896914 1 1 14102
> 496427 /usr/src/sys/netinet/ip_output.c:594 (sleep mutex:rtentry)
> 22 120 2073128 47 2 44109 0
> (rw:if_lagg rwlock)
> 39 17857439 4262576 5690740 3 0 95072
> 1484738 /usr/src/sys/net/route.c:197 (sleep mutex:rtentry)
> It looks like the if_lagg one has been fixed already in 8.0, it could
> probably be backported but requires some other infrastructure that
> might not be in 7.0.
> The others are to do with concurrent transmission of packets (it is
> doing silly things with route lookups). kmacy has a WIP that fixes
> this. If you are interested in testing an 8.0 kernel with the fixes
> let me know.
Well those servers are only for tests so I can test everything, but at
some point I'll have to make final decision what to use in production :)
>>> http://188.8.131.52/lagg2-gprof.txt I forget this file :)
>> I found that MD5Transform aways uses ~14% (with rx/txcsum enabled or
> Yeah, these don't have anything to do with MD5.
Well I didn't find from where MD5Transform() is called, so I guess it's
a some 'magic', that I still do not understand ;)
>> And when using without lagg MD5Transform pick up to 20% of the time.
>> Is this normal?
> It is probably from the syncache. You could disable it
> (net.inet.tcp.syncookies_only) if you don't need strong protection
> against SYN flooding.
How the server perform during SYN flooding is exactly what I test at the
So I can't disable this.
Just for information, if someone is interested - I looked how linux
(2.6.22-14-generic ubuntu) perform in the same situation .. by default
it doesn't perform at all - it hardly replays to 100-200 packets/s,
with syncookies enabled it can handle up to 70-90,000 pps (250-270,000
compared to freebsd), but the server is very loaded and not very
Of course this doesn't mean that FreeBSD can't perform better ;)
I plan to test iptables, newer kernel, various options, and may be few
More information about the freebsd-performance