Test on 10GBE Intel based network card

Mon Aug 17 21:52:47 UTC 2009

Hi Jack,

Thanks for the quick response. We can not use LRO because of the way we accelerate on the WAN ports. We just moved from 7.0 to 8.0 to use your latest driver (1.8.8). One thing we do not understand in 8.0. We are having insane numbers for XON/XOFF Rcvd  counters with essentially no traffic.  Driver version 1.2.16 works fine. Who should we contact for help?

ix0: Std Mbuf Failed = 0

ix0: Missed Packets = 0

ix0: Receive length errors = 0

ix0: Crc errors = 0

ix0: Driver dropped packets = 0

ix0: watchdog timeouts = 0

ix0: XON Rcvd = 7950055973552

ix0: XON Xmtd = 0

ix0: XOFF Rcvd = 7950055973552

ix0: XOFF Xmtd = 0

ix0: Total Packets Rcvd = 2149

ix0: Good Packets Rcvd = 2149

ix0: Good Packets Xmtd = 1001

ix0: TSO Transmissions = 0

ix1: Std Mbuf Failed = 0

ix1: Missed Packets = 0

ix1: Receive length errors = 0

ix1: Crc errors = 0

ix1: Driver dropped packets = 0

ix1: watchdog timeouts = 0

ix1: XON Rcvd = 7946320044993

ix1: XON Xmtd = 0

ix1: XOFF Rcvd = 7946320044993

ix1: XOFF Xmtd = 0

ix1: Total Packets Rcvd = 1002

ix1: Good Packets Rcvd = 1002

ix1: Good Packets Xmtd = 1588

ix1: TSO Transmissions = 0

Regards,

C Pardo

From: Jack Vogel [mailto:jfvogel at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 3:15 PM
To: Carlos Pardo
Cc: freebsd-performance at freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Test on 10GBE Intel based network card

I've talked over the issues with the guy on our team who has been most
involved in 10G performance, he asserts that 3Gbs will saturate a single
cpu with a small packet size, this is why you need multiqueue across
multiple cores.  He was dubious about the FIFO assertion, its a relative
thing, if you can keep the thing drained it won't be a problem, doing that
is a complex combination of factors, the cpu, the bus, the memory....

If you don't deal with the systemic issues just cuz you go from an 82598
to a 82599 is not going to solve things.

What about LRO, are/can you use that? I never saw an answer about the
forwarding question, you can't use LRO in that case of course.

Regards,

Jack

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Carlos Pardo <cpardo at fastsoft.com> wrote:

Hi Jack,

I have a quick question. We are getting too many missed packets per minute running about 3Gbs traffic. We can not use frame control in our application. We are assuming that there is no way to improve upon the problem since it seems to be a hardware limitation with the receive FIFO. We are using the Intel® 82598EB 10 Gigabit Ethernet Controller. When can we expect the next generation card from Intel? Thanks for any information you may provide.

Typical error count "ix0: Missed Packets = 81174" after a few minutes.

Best Regards,

Cpardo

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-freebsd-performance at freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-performance at freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Invernizzi Fabrizio

Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:13 AM
To: Jack Vogel; Julian Elischer
Cc: freebsd-performance at freebsd.org; Stefan Lambrev
Subject: RE: Test on 10GBE Intel based network card

No improvement with kern.ipc.nmbclusters=262144 and 1.8.6 driver :<(((((

++fabrizio

------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecom Italia
Fabrizio INVERNIZZI
Technology - TILAB
Accesso Fisso e Trasporto
Via Reiss Romoli, 274 10148 Torino
Tel.  +39 011 2285497
Mob. +39 3316001344
Fax +39 06 41867287

________________________________
From: Jack Vogel [mailto:jfvogel at gmail.com]
Sent: martedì 4 agosto 2009 18.42
To: Julian Elischer
Cc: Invernizzi Fabrizio; freebsd-performance at freebsd.org; Stefan Lambrev
Subject: Re: Test on 10GBE Intel based network card

Your nmbclusters is very low, you list it twice so I'm assuming the second value is
what it ends up being, 32K :(

I would set it to:

kern.ipc.nmbclusters=262144

Also, I thought you were using the current driver, but now it looks like you are
using something fairly old,  use my latest code which is 1.8.8

Jack

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Julian Elischer <julian at elischer.org<mailto:julian at elischer.org>> wrote:
Invernizzi Fabrizio wrote:
The limitation that you see is about the max number of packets that
FreeBSD can handle - it looks like your best performance is reached at
64 byte packets?
If you are meaning in term of Packet per second, you are right. These
are the packet per second measured during tests:
64 byte:        610119 Pps
512 byte:       516917 Pps
1492 byte:      464962 Pps

Am I correct that the maximum you can reach is around 639,000 packets
per second?
Yes, as you can see the maximum is 610119 Pps.
Where does this limit come from?
ah that's the whole point of tuning :-)
there are severalpossibities:
1/ the card's interrupts are probably attache dto aonly 1 cpu,
so that cpu can do no more work

This seems not to be the problem. See below a top snapshot during a 64byte-long packet storm

last pid:  8552;  load averages:  0.40,  0.09,  0.03                                                                                         up 0+20:36:58  09:40:29
124 processes: 13 running, 73 sleeping, 38 waiting
CPU:  0.0% user,  0.0% nice, 86.3% system, 12.3% interrupt,  1.5% idle
Mem: 13M Active, 329M Inact, 372M Wired, 68K Cache, 399M Buf, 7207M Free
Swap: 2048M Total, 2048M Free

 PID USERNAME    THR PRI NICE   SIZE    RES STATE  C   TIME   WCPU COMMAND
 11 root          1 171 ki31     0K    16K RUN    3  20.2H 51.17% idle: cpu3
 14 root          1 171 ki31     0K    16K RUN    0  20.2H 50.88% idle: cpu0
 12 root          1 171 ki31     0K    16K RUN    2  20.2H 50.49% idle: cpu2
 13 root          1 171 ki31     0K    16K RUN    1  20.2H 50.10% idle: cpu1
 42 root          1 -68    -     0K    16K RUN    1  14:20 36.47% ix0 rxq
 38 root          1 -68    -     0K    16K CPU0   0  14:15 36.08% ix0 rxq
 44 root          1 -68    -     0K    16K CPU2   2  14:08 34.47% ix0 rxq
 40 root          1 -68    -     0K    16K CPU3   3  13:42 32.37% ix0 rxq
....

It looks like the 4 rxq processes are bound to the 4 available cores with equal distribution.

2/ if more than 1 cpu is working, it may be that there is a lock in
heavy contention somewhere.

This I think is the problem. I am trying to understand how to
1- see where the heavy contention is (context switching? Some limiting setting?)
2- mitigate it

there ia a lock profiling tool that right now I can't remember the name of..

look it up with google :-)  FreeBSD lock profiling tool

ah, first hit...

http://blogs.epfl.ch/article/23832

is the machine still responsive to other networks while
running at maximum capacity on this network? (make sure that
the other networks are on a differnet CPU (hmm I can't remember how to
do that :-).

Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.

_______________________________________________

freebsd-performance at freebsd.org<mailto:freebsd-performance at freebsd.org> mailing list

http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance

To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe at freebsd.org<mailto:freebsd-performance-unsubscribe at freebsd.org>"

Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.

[cid:00000000000000000000000000000001 at TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.