On 23. May 2012, at 08:22 , Venkat Duvvuru wrote:
> Folks,
> Can somebody please explain me why "tcp checsum" calculation is mandated in
> the freebsd network stack (tcp_input--->in6_cksum) albeit the card supports
> it?
>
> Probably Steve is the right person who can answer this.
Just for publi
Folks,
Can somebody please explain me why "tcp checsum" calculation is mandated in
the freebsd network stack (tcp_input--->in6_cksum) albeit the card supports
it?
Probably Steve is the right person who can answer this.
/Venkat
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Venkat Duvvuru wrote:
> Ok. I fou
Ok. I found the reason for the throughput drop in case of IPv6.
Reason is that the "tcp check sum" calculation is mandated in case of IPv6
irrespective of whether the card is doing it or not (checksum offload). Is
there a reason why freebsd is doing it that way?
/Venkat
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11
LRO is a huge win for 10G (as is TSO on the TX side), so odds are good its
behind the drop,
in any case you'll be able to test that soon :)
Jack
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Venkat Duvvuru wrote:
> Thanks for the response.
>
> I observed that there is a significant performance drop in cas
Thanks for the response.
I observed that there is a significant performance drop in case of IPv6 on
the "rx" side.
While I'm able to hit line rate ~9.5 Gbps on a 10gb NIC for IPv4..I could
only get ~6 Gbps on the "rx" front for IPv6...However "tx" for IPv6 is on
par with IPv4 hitting almost line r
On 22. May 2012, at 17:04 , Jack Vogel wrote:
> Oh, that's right, distracted with other projects and I forgot, now we just
> need
> to have an LRO that works with forwarding eh :)
That's a 6 line bainaid commit afterwards, basically returning form the LRO
queuing
function in case forwarding is
Oh, that's right, distracted with other projects and I forgot, now we just
need
to have an LRO that works with forwarding eh :)
You ROCK bz :)
Jack
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>
> On 22. May 2012, at 16:50 , Jack Vogel wrote:
>
> > The LRO code as it stands right n
On 22. May 2012, at 16:50 , Jack Vogel wrote:
> The LRO code as it stands right now is IPV4 specific, it would be nice to
> extend it, one of
> many improvements that may get done at some point.
I am about to commit it to HEAD. Bear another few days with me; I know
I am running late but committ
The LRO code as it stands right now is IPV4 specific, it would be nice to
extend it, one of
many improvements that may get done at some point.
Jack
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Venkat Duvvuru
wrote:
> Folks,
> Could somebody please tell about the base Freebsd version which has LRO
> support
