Hi chen, What Jesse is pointing out is that your problem seems unrelated to OVS. In particular, the low throughput you observe is probably related to something else in the system, be it drivers, VLAN offloading, intermediate network, etc.
The point is that you already have verified for yourself that the actions don't really have an impact, especially compared to the effect when the traffic is ultimately tagged =) -Reid On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Li, Chen <chen...@intel.com> wrote: > Sorry, I’m really new to OVS, can you give me more specific move I can > do next?**** > > I’m eager to solve this ,but really have no idea where to start……L**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Jesse Gross [mailto:je...@nicira.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, October 19, 2013 12:16 AM > *To:* Li, Chen > *Cc:* dev@openvswitch.org > *Subject:* Re: [ovs-dev] vlan tag add/remove affect bandwidth a lot**** > > ** ** > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Li, Chen <chen...@intel.com> wrote:**** > > I have changed my test method a little to make the issue more clear:**** > > **** > > **** > > As you can see, my vm has two virtual NIC, tap1 is working under VLAN > (tag=2002), while tap2 is working under FLAT. **** > > And the bandwidth is :**** > > Test Node => tap1 2.85 Gbits/sec**** > > Test Node => tap2 9.40 Gbits/sec**** > > **** > > Flows rules applied:**** > > ovs-ofctl dump-flows br-int**** > > NXST_FLOW reply (xid=0x4):**** > > cookie=0x0, duration=2024.067s, table=0, n_packets=989820, > n_bytes=23566560107, idle_age=1, priority=3,in_port=16,*vlan_tci=0x0000 > actions=mod_vlan_vid:2*,NORMAL**** > > cookie=0x0, duration=2024.769s, table=0, n_packets=4873950, n_bytes= > 7378336782, idle_age=20, priority=3,in_port=17,*dl_vlan=2002 > actions=mod_vlan_vid:1*,NORMAL**** > > cookie=0x0, duration=2029.604s, table=0, n_packets=52, n_bytes=3768, > idle_age=72, priority=2,in_port=16 actions=drop**** > > cookie=0x0, duration=2027.391s, table=0, n_packets=4729, n_bytes=286686, > idle_age=1, priority=2,in_port=17 actions=drop**** > > cookie=0x0, duration=2031.156s, table=0, n_packets=3161368, > n_bytes=208726297, idle_age=20, priority=1 actions=NORMAL**** > > **** > > ovs-ofctl dump-flows br-eth4**** > > NXST_FLOW reply (xid=0x4):**** > > cookie=0x0, duration=2043.307s, table=0, n_packets=925503, > n_bytes=61092489, idle_age=90, priority=4,in_port=7,*dl_vlan=2 > actions=strip_vlan*,NORMAL**** > > cookie=0x0, duration=2048.566s, table=0, n_packets=47, n_bytes=3212, > idle_age=91, priority=2,in_port=7 actions=drop**** > > cookie=0x0, duration=2049.988s, table=0, n_packets=989979, > n_bytes=23566580239, idle_age=1, priority=1 actions=NORMAL**** > > **** > > ovs-ofctl dump-flows br-eth5**** > > NXST_FLOW reply (xid=0x4):**** > > cookie=0x0, duration=2047.936s, table=0, n_packets=2235861, > n_bytes=147635900, idle_age=43, priority=4,in_port=4,*dl_vlan=1 > actions=mod_vlan_vid:2002*,NORMAL**** > > cookie=0x0, duration=2050.289s, table=0, n_packets=4784, n_bytes=293458, > idle_age=1, priority=2,in_port=4 actions=drop**** > > cookie=0x0, duration=2051.95s, table=0, n_packets=305743, n_bytes= > 7076819244, idle_age=1, priority=1 actions=NORMAL**** > > **** > > Both path has an adding and stripping of VLAN tags operation, so where > can I find the difference from code ??**** > > ** ** > > The problem is almost certainly not the actual modification of tags but in > the interactions with the rest of the system. In that case, it's not > surprising that rewriting the tags doesn't change anything.**** > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev@openvswitch.org > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
