On 17.07.2012 17:21, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
17.07.2012 06:23, Konstantin Belousov пишет:
I do not think that your 'per-cpu' counter are correct. The thread
migration or rescheduling causes the fetch or update of the wrong
per-cpu structure. This allows parallel updates with undefined
consequenc
On 17.07.2012 13:38, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 17.07.2012 12:36, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 17.07.2012 01:22, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 09:43:01PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 06.07.2012 10:11, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 05:40:37PM +040
17.07.2012 06:23, Konstantin Belousov пишет:
> I do not think that your 'per-cpu' counter are correct. The thread
> migration or rescheduling causes the fetch or update of the wrong
> per-cpu structure. This allows parallel updates with undefined
> consequences.
>From practical point of view, I'l
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 02:33:24PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> On 17.07.2012 03:23, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 09:43:01PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> >>On 06.07.2012 10:11, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 05:40:37PM +0400, Alexander V
On 17.07.2012 03:23, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 09:43:01PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 06.07.2012 10:11, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 05:40:37PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 04.07.2012 19:48, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
the thing discussed a
On 17.07.2012 12:36, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 17.07.2012 01:22, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 09:43:01PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 06.07.2012 10:11, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 05:40:37PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 04.07.2012 19:4
On 17.07.2012 01:22, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 09:43:01PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 06.07.2012 10:11, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 05:40:37PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 04.07.2012 19:48, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
well, it seems that the co
On 17.07.2012 11:17, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
May be slightly off-topic, but do you have tested (or have plans to test )
with bidirectional traffic?
Situation with bi-directional traffic is better (not sure how much). I'm
intentionally not testing this case to discover rough cases (like
contested
On 7/16/2012 10:13 PM, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
Old kernel from previous letters, same setup:
net.inet.ip.fw.enable=0
2.3 MPPS
net.inet.ip.fw.update_counters=0
net.inet.ip.fw.enable=1
1.93MPPS
net.inet.ip.fw.update_counters=1
1.74MPPS
Kernel with ipfw pcpu counters:
net.inet.ip.fw.enable=
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 09:43:01PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> On 06.07.2012 10:11, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 05:40:37PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> >>On 04.07.2012 19:48, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >the thing discussed a few years ago (at least the one i took ou
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 09:43:01PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> On 06.07.2012 10:11, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 05:40:37PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> >>On 04.07.2012 19:48, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >the thing discussed a few years ago (at least the one i took ou
On 06.07.2012 10:11, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 05:40:37PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 04.07.2012 19:48, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
the thing discussed a few years ago (at least the one i took out of the
discussion) was that the counter fields in rules should hold the
index
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 05:40:37PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> On 04.07.2012 19:48, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
...
> Traffic stats with most possible counters eliminated:
> (there is a possibility in ixgbe code to update rx/tx packets once per
> rx_process_limit (which is 100 by default)):
>
>
On 04.07.2012 19:48, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 01:54:01PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 04.07.2012 13:12, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
Alex,
i am sure you are aware that in FreeBSD we have netmap too
Yes, I'm aware of that :)
which is probably a lot more usable than packetsh
On 04.07.2012 23:37, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Hello, Alexander.
You wrote 4 июля 2012 г., 12:46:09:
AVC> http://shader.kaist.edu/packetshader/ (and links there) are good example
AVC> of what is going on.
But HOW?! GPU has very high "preparation" and data transfer cost,
how it could be use
Hello, Alexander.
You wrote 4 июля 2012 г., 12:46:09:
AVC> http://shader.kaist.edu/packetshader/ (and links there) are good example
AVC> of what is going on.
But HOW?! GPU has very high "preparation" and data transfer cost,
how it could be used for such small packets of data, as 1.5-9K
data
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 01:54:01PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> On 04.07.2012 13:12, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >Alex,
> >i am sure you are aware that in FreeBSD we have netmap too
> Yes, I'm aware of that :)
>
> >which is probably a lot more usable than packetshader
> >(hw independent, includ
On 04.07.2012 13:12, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
Alex,
i am sure you are aware that in FreeBSD we have netmap too
Yes, I'm aware of that :)
which is probably a lot more usable than packetshader
(hw independent, included in the OS, also works on linux...)
I'm actually not talking about usability and com
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 12:46:09PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> On 04.07.2012 12:13, Doug Barton wrote:
> >On 07/03/2012 23:29, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> >>On 04.07.2012 01:29, Doug Barton wrote:
> >Just curious ... what's the MTU on your FreeBSD box, and the Linux box?
> >>
> >
On 04.07.2012 12:13, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/03/2012 23:29, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 04.07.2012 01:29, Doug Barton wrote:
Just curious ... what's the MTU on your FreeBSD box, and the Linux box?
In this particular setup - 1500. You're probably meaning type of mbufs
which are allocated
On 07/03/2012 23:29, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> On 04.07.2012 01:29, Doug Barton wrote:
Just curious ... what's the MTU on your FreeBSD box, and the Linux box?
>
> In this particular setup - 1500. You're probably meaning type of mbufs
> which are allocated by ixgbe driver?
1500 for both?
On 04.07.2012 01:29, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/03/2012 14:44, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
Just curious ... what's the MTU on your FreeBSD box, and the Linux box?
he is (correctly) using min-sized packets, and counting packets not bps.
In thi
On 07/03/2012 14:44, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>> Just curious ... what's the MTU on your FreeBSD box, and the Linux box?
>
> he is (correctly) using min-sized packets, and counting packets not bps.
Yes, I know. That wasn't what I asked.
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> Just curious ... what's the MTU on your FreeBSD box, and the Linux box?
he is (correctly) using min-sized packets, and counting packets not bps.
cheers
luigi
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mai
Just curious ... what's the MTU on your FreeBSD box, and the Linux box?
(also, please don't cross-post to so many lists) :)
Doug
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 12:31:56AM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> On 04.07.2012 00:27, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 09:37:38PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> >...
> >>Thanks, another good point. I forgot to merge this option from andre's
> >>patch.
> >>
> >>Another
On 04.07.2012 00:27, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 09:37:38PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
...
Thanks, another good point. I forgot to merge this option from andre's
patch.
Another 30-40-50kpps to win.
not much gain though.
What about the other IPSTAT_INC counters ?
Well,
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 09:37:38PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
...
> Thanks, another good point. I forgot to merge this option from andre's
> patch.
>
> Another 30-40-50kpps to win.
not much gain though.
What about the other IPSTAT_INC counters ?
I think the IPSTAT_INC macros were intro
On 03.07.2012 20:55, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 08:11:14PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
Hello list!
I'm quite stuck with bad forwarding performance on many FreeBSD boxes
doing firewalling.
...
In most cases system can forward no more than 700 (or 1400) kpps which
is qu
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 08:11:14PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> Hello list!
>
> I'm quite stuck with bad forwarding performance on many FreeBSD boxes
> doing firewalling.
...
> In most cases system can forward no more than 700 (or 1400) kpps which
> is quite a bad number (Linux does, s
Hello list!
I'm quite stuck with bad forwarding performance on many FreeBSD boxes
doing firewalling.
Typical configuration is E5645 / E5675 @ Intel 82599 NIC.
HT is turned off.
(Configs and tunables below).
I'm mostly concerned with unidirectional traffic flowing to single
interface (e.g. us
31 matches
Mail list logo
