On 18 July 2014 19:06, Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2014-07-19 2:18 GMT+08:00 Navdeep Parhar <npar...@gmail.com>: > >> On 07/18/14 00:49, Marcelo Araujo wrote: >> > 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. >> >> Deliberately putting out-of-order packets on the wire is never a good >> idea. This would count as a serious regression in lagg(4) imho. >> >> Regards, >> Navdeep >> >> > > I'm wondering if anyone have tested the patch; because as I have explained > in another email, the number of SACK is much less with this patch. I have > put some pcap files here: http://people.freebsd.org/~araujo/lagg/ > > Also, as far as I know, the current roundrobin implementation has no such > kind of mechanism to control the order of the packages that goes to the > wire. And this patch, what it only does is, instead to send only one package > through one interface and switch to the another one, it will send X(where X > is the number of packets defined via sysctl) packets and then, switch to the > next interface. > > So, could you show me, where this patch deliberately put out-of-order > packets? Did I miss anything?
It doesn't introduce it, but it still continues potentially out of order behaviour depending upon CPU loading and NIC scheduling. If you're seeing reduced ACK / retransmits by doing this then there's gotta be some other underlying factor causing it. That's what I think needs to be fixed, not papering over it by more round robin hacks. :-P -a _______________________________________________ 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"
