On 1/24/2016 at 5:56 AM, "Marcus Cenzatti" wrote:
>
>On 1/24/2016 at 5:17 AM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
>>
>>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Marcus Cenzatti
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/24/2016 at 3:33 AM, "Luigi Rizzo"
>>wrote:
>>...
>>
>>> ok here it is
>>>
>>> this lowered pps rate to 9.4Mpps
On 1/24/2016 at 5:17 AM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Marcus Cenzatti
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/24/2016 at 3:33 AM, "Luigi Rizzo"
>wrote:
>...
>
>> ok here it is
>>
>> this lowered pps rate to 9.4Mpps on chelsio (we had 11Mpps with
>defaul len) and lowered rates to
On 1/24/2016 at 4:07 AM, "Navdeep Parhar" wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 08:38:24PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> ok, that's a discussion to have with navdeep. That /should/ work.
>> Someone may have changed it lately.
>
>Yes this used to work.
>
>>
>> Things should behave very well and pred
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 09:33:32PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 1/24/2016 at 1:10 AM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
...
>> One last attempt: try use -l 64 on the sender, thi
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
>
>
> On 1/24/2016 at 3:33 AM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
...
> ok here it is
>
> this lowered pps rate to 9.4Mpps on chelsio (we had 11Mpps with defaul len)
> and lowered rates to 14Mpps on sender (we had 14.8Mpps before).
see the other email
On 1/24/2016 at 3:33 AM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Marcus Cenzatti
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/24/2016 at 1:10 AM, "Luigi Rizzo"
>wrote:
>>>
>>>Thanks for re-running the experiments.
>>>
>>>I am changing the subject so that in the archives it is clear
>>>that the che
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 09:33:32PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/24/2016 at 1:10 AM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
> >>
> >>Thanks for re-running the experiments.
> >>
> >>I am changing the subject so that in the archives it is clear
>
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 08:38:24PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> ok, that's a discussion to have with navdeep. That /should/ work.
> Someone may have changed it lately.
Yes this used to work.
>
> Things should behave very well and predictable once you can disable
> cxl0 but not ncxl0. :-P
The pl
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
>
>
> On 1/24/2016 at 1:10 AM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
>>
>>Thanks for re-running the experiments.
>>
>>I am changing the subject so that in the archives it is clear
>>that the chelsio card works fine.
>>
>>Overall the tests confirm that whenev
ok, that's a discussion to have with navdeep. That /should/ work.
Someone may have changed it lately.
Things should behave very well and predictable once you can disable
cxl0 but not ncxl0. :-P
-a
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists
On 1/24/2016 at 2:10 AM, "Adrian Chadd" wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>Right, but then can you bring down cxl0 whilst leaving ncxl0 up?
>
no :(
different behaviour from T540?
chelsio# ifconfig cxl0
cxl0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500
options=ec00bb
ether 00:07:43:33:8d:c0
nd6 opt
On 1/24/2016 at 1:10 AM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
>
>Thanks for re-running the experiments.
>
>I am changing the subject so that in the archives it is clear
>that the chelsio card works fine.
>
>Overall the tests confirm that whenever you hit the host stack you
>are bound
>to the poor performance o
[snip]
Right, but then can you bring down cxl0 whilst leaving ncxl0 up?
-a
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
On 1/24/2016 at 1:20 AM, "Adrian Chadd" wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>You should be able to run with cxl0 down but ncxl0 up. If that
>doesn't
>work then it's a bug. It worked when I last tried 40g bridging
>(about
>5 months ago.)
>
>Try that manually - ifconfig cxl0 down; ifconfig ncxl0 up
>
>
tried, n
[snip]
You should be able to run with cxl0 down but ncxl0 up. If that doesn't
work then it's a bug. It worked when I last tried 40g bridging (about
5 months ago.)
Try that manually - ifconfig cxl0 down; ifconfig ncxl0 up
-a
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.or
Thanks for re-running the experiments.
I am changing the subject so that in the archives it is clear
that the chelsio card works fine.
Overall the tests confirm that whenever you hit the host stack you are bound
to the poor performance of the latter. The problem does not appear using intel
as a r
On 1/23/2016 at 10:11 PM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Navdeep Parhar
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:12:28AM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Navdeep Parhar
> wrote:
>>> > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:48:39PM -0200, Marcus Cenzat
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:12:28AM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:48:39PM -0200, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> woops, my bad, yes probably w
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:12:28AM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:48:39PM -0200, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
> > ...
> >>
> >> woops, my bad, yes probably we had some drop, with -S and -D now I get
> >> 1.2Mpps.
> >
>
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 04:54:52PM -0200, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
...
> here is the output for netstat when I pkt-gen -f tx un-throttled (14Mpps):
>
> input(Total) output
>packets errs idrops bytespackets errs bytes colls drops
> 900k 0
On 1/23/2016 at 4:00 PM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Marcus Cenzatti
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/23/2016 at 3:35 PM, "Luigi Rizzo"
>wrote:
>>>
>>>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Marcus Cenzatti
>>> wrote:
On 1/23/2016 at 1:40 PM, "Navdeep Parhar"
>>>wr
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:48:39PM -0200, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
> ...
>>
>> woops, my bad, yes probably we had some drop, with -S and -D now I get
>> 1.2Mpps.
>
> Run "netstat -hdw1 -i cxl" on the receiver during your test.
Navdeep, does
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:12:59PM -0200, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
...
> intel# ./pkt-gen -i ix0 -f tx -d 00:07:43:33:8d:c1 -s 00:07:e9:44:d2:ba
> 267.767848 main [1715] interface is ix0
> 267.767990 extract_ip_range [291] range is 0.0.0.0:90 to 0.0.0.0:90
> 267.768006 extract_ip_range [291] range is
On 1/23/2016 at 4:38 PM, "Navdeep Parhar" wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:48:39PM -0200, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
>...
>>
>> woops, my bad, yes probably we had some drop, with -S and -D now
>I get 1.2Mpps.
>
>Run "netstat -hdw1 -i cxl" on the receiver during your test.
>Do you
>see errs a
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
>>> woops, my bad, yes probably we had some drop, with -S and -D now
>>I get 1.2Mpps.
>>>
>>> curiously, I have always used -s/-d with IP addresses on ix-ix
>>testing this is why I never noticed the case, since ix always
>>received 14Mpps,
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:48:39PM -0200, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
...
>
> woops, my bad, yes probably we had some drop, with -S and -D now I get
> 1.2Mpps.
Run "netstat -hdw1 -i cxl" on the receiver during your test. Do you
see errs and/or idrops incrementing? The input "packets" counter should
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
>
>
> On 1/23/2016 at 3:35 PM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
>>
>>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Marcus Cenzatti
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/23/2016 at 1:40 PM, "Navdeep Parhar"
>>wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:34:27AM -0200, Marcus Cen
On 1/23/2016 at 3:35 PM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Marcus Cenzatti
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/23/2016 at 1:40 PM, "Navdeep Parhar"
>wrote:
>>>
>>>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:34:27AM -0200, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
hello,
I am testing a chelsio t520-so-cr
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
>
>
> On 1/23/2016 at 1:40 PM, "Navdeep Parhar" wrote:
>>
>>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:34:27AM -0200, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
>>> hello,
>>>
>>> I am testing a chelsio t520-so-cr connected to a Intel card with
>>ix(4)
>>> driver, I can get th
On 1/23/2016 at 1:29 PM, "Adrian Chadd" wrote:
>
>What are you doing for RX? More netmap? Or the normal stack?
yes, netmap w/ pkt-gen -f rx, I just sent a transcript for a testing session in
my previous e-mail
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing li
On 1/23/2016 at 1:40 PM, "Navdeep Parhar" wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:34:27AM -0200, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
>> hello,
>>
>> I am testing a chelsio t520-so-cr connected to a Intel card with
>ix(4)
>> driver, I can get the ncxl0 interface to transmit at 14Mpps to
>another
>> chelsio or
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:34:27AM -0200, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
> hello,
>
> I am testing a chelsio t520-so-cr connected to a Intel card with ix(4)
> driver, I can get the ncxl0 interface to transmit at 14Mpps to another
> chelsio or to a Intel card. However I can only get 800Kpps-1Mpps for
> RX
What are you doing for RX? More netmap? Or the normal stack?
-a
On 22 January 2016 at 21:34, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
> hello,
>
> I am testing a chelsio t520-so-cr connected to a Intel card with ix(4)
> driver, I can get the ncxl0 interface to transmit at 14Mpps to another
> chelsio or to a I
hello,
I am testing a chelsio t520-so-cr connected to a Intel card with ix(4) driver,
I can get the ncxl0 interface to transmit at 14Mpps to another chelsio or to a
Intel card. However I can only get 800Kpps-1Mpps for RX tests from both chelsio
or Intel.
I have test with both FreeBSD 11 and Fr
34 matches
Mail list logo
