Re: Request for Testing: TCP RACK

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 18:51:05 +0100
tuexen@freebsd.org wrote:

> > On Nov 17, 2023, at 17:06, Johan Hendriks <joh.hendriks@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I am running the rack stack for quiet some time now on a baremetal machiene and never had problems.
> > Also use pf.  This is a test machine so not a lot happening on it.
> > 
> > Are there any thing we can test? Do we have some test scripts we can run?
> We are actually interested in feedback about using the stack in whatever
> use case you use TCP for. The stack has been tested with the Netflix use
> case, but not so much with others. That is why we ask for broader testing.
> 
> Best regards
> Michael

Are there any difference regarding with performance between main and
stable/14? If so, please ignore below.

I have stable/14 environment which is configured to be able to switch
to TCP RACK and experienced huge performance loss when writing
a large file to smbfs share on commercial NAS. CC is cubic.
Testing large archive on the smbfs share doesn't seem to be
affected.

Comparison between default (freebsd) and rack TCP stack using
sysutils/clone on stable/14 at commit 7d1321288ad9, amd64.
Last 3 lines of outputs from clone (upload to NAS) are shown.

Before switching to rack:
1 item copied, 2342.4 MB in 39.12 s -- 59.9 MB/s
Leaked memory: 0 bytes
No errors occured.

Unmount the smbfs share, switch to rack, and after remount:
1 item copied, 2342.4 MB in 926.59 s -- 2.5 MB/s
Leaked memory: 0 bytes
No errors occured.

Switch back to freebsd (default) without unmounting:
1 item copied, 2342.4 MB in 906.94 s -- 2.6 MB/s
Leaked memory: 0 bytes
No errors occured.

Unmount and remount the smbfs share:
1 item copied, 2342.4 MB in 39.12 s -- 59.9 MB/s
Leaked memory: 0 bytes
No errors occured.


Regards.

-- 
Tomoaki AOKI    <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp>