Hello guys, I made few changes on the lagg(4) patch. Also, I made tests using igb(4), ixgbe(4) and em(4); seems everything worked pretty well.
I'm wondering if anyone else could make a review, and what I need to do, to see this patch committed. Best Regards, 2014-06-24 10:40 GMT+08:00 Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdp...@gmail.com>: > > > 2014-06-24 6:54 GMT+08:00 Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org>: > > Hi, >> >> No, don't introduce out of order behaviour. Ever. > > > Yes, it has out of order behavior; with my patch much less. I upload two > pcap files and you can see by yourself, if you don't believe in what I'm > talking about. > > Test done using: "iperf -s" and "iperf -c <ip> -i 1 -t 10". > > 1) Don't change the number of packets(default round robin behavior). > http://people.freebsd.org/~araujo/lagg/lagg-nop.cap > 8 out of order packets. > Several SACKs. > > 2) Set the number of packets to 50. > http://people.freebsd.org/~araujo/lagg/lagg.cap > 0 out of order packets. > Less SACKs. > > >> You may not think >> it's a problem for TCP, but UDP things and VPN things will start >> getting very angry. There are VPN configurations out there that will >> drop the VPN if frames are out of order. >> > > I'm not thinking that will be a problem for TCP, but, in somehow it will > be, less throughput as I showed before, and less SACK. About the VPN, > please, tell me which softwares, and let me know where I can get a sample > to make a testbed. > > However to be very honest, I don't believe anyone here when change > something at network protocols will make this extensive testbed. It is > almost impossible to predict what software it will works or not, and I > don't believe anyone here has all these stuff in hands. > > >> >> The ixgbe driver is setting the flowid to the msix queue ID, rather >> than a 32 bit unique flow id hash value for the flow. That makes it >> hard to do traffic distribution where the flowid is available. >> > > Thanks for the explanation. > > >> >> There's an lagg option to re-hash the mbuf rather than rely on the >> flowid for outbound port choice - have you looked at using that? Did >> that make any difference? >> > > Yes, I set to 0 the net.link.lagg.0.use _flowid, it make a little > difference to the default round robin implementation, but yet I can't reach > more than 5 Gbit/s. With my patch and set the packets to 50, it improved a > bit too. > > So, thank you so much for all review, I don't know if you have time and a > testbed to make a real test, as I'm doing. I would be happy if you or more > people could make tests on that patch. Also, I have only ixgbe(4) to make > tests, would appreciate if this patch could be tested with other NICs too. > > Best Regards, > > -- > Marcelo Araujo (__) > ara...@freebsd.org \\\'',)http://www.FreeBSD.org > <http://www.freebsd.org/> \/ \ ^ > Power To Server. .\. /_) > > -- -- Marcelo Araujo (__)ara...@freebsd.org \\\'',)http://www.FreeBSD.org <http://www.freebsd.org/> \/ \ ^ Power To Server. .\. /_)
if_lagg-rr.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
