On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 8:18 AM Moshe Shemesh wrote:
>
>
>
> I do see big improvement after changing the 3 parameters as Eric suggested:
> /proc/sys/net/ipv6/ip6frag_time set to 2
> /proc/sys/net/ipv6/ip6frag_low_thresh set to 104857600
> /proc/sys/net/ipv6/ip6frag_high_thresh set to 78643200
>
>
On 5/30/2018 10:20 AM, Tariq Toukan wrote:
On 28/05/2018 7:09 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On 05/28/2018 07:52 AM, Alexander Aring wrote:
as somebody who had similar issues with this patch series I can tell you
about what happened for the 6LoWPAN fragmentation.
The issue sounds similar, but
On 30/05/2018 10:36 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:20 AM Tariq Toukan wrote:
Not sure, the transmit BW you get is higher than what we saw.
Anyway, we'll check this.
That is on a 40Gbit test bed (mlx4 cx/3), maybe you were using a 10Gbit NIC
?
It is a ConnectX-4 50G (
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 6:36 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Here are the good ones, using latest David Miller net tree. ( plus
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/922528/ but that should not matter
here)
> llpaa23:/export/hda3/google/edumazet# ./netperf -H 2607:f8b0:8099:e18:: -t
> UDP_STREAM
> MIG
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:20 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer
wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2018 09:09:17 -0700
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Tariq, here are my test results : No drops for me.
> >
> > # ./netperf -H 2607:f8b0:8099:e18:: -t UDP_STREAM
> > MIGRATED UDP STREAM TEST from ::0 (::) port 0 AF_INET6 to
On Mon, 28 May 2018 09:09:17 -0700
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Tariq, here are my test results : No drops for me.
>
> # ./netperf -H 2607:f8b0:8099:e18:: -t UDP_STREAM
> MIGRATED UDP STREAM TEST from ::0 (::) port 0 AF_INET6 to
> 2607:f8b0:8099:e18:: () port 0 AF_INET6
> Socket Message Elapsed
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:20 AM Tariq Toukan wrote:
> Not sure, the transmit BW you get is higher than what we saw.
> Anyway, we'll check this.
That is on a 40Gbit test bed (mlx4 cx/3), maybe you were using a 10Gbit NIC
?
On 28/05/2018 7:09 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On 05/28/2018 07:52 AM, Alexander Aring wrote:
as somebody who had similar issues with this patch series I can tell you
about what happened for the 6LoWPAN fragmentation.
The issue sounds similar, but there is too much missing information here
to
On 05/28/2018 07:52 AM, Alexander Aring wrote:
> as somebody who had similar issues with this patch series I can tell you
> about what happened for the 6LoWPAN fragmentation.
>
> The issue sounds similar, but there is too much missing information here
> to say something about if you have exactl
Hi,
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 12:12:42PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
>
>
> On 01/04/2018 6:25 AM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet
> > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 12:58:41 -0700
> >
> > > IP defrag processing is one of the remaining problematic layer in linux.
> > >
> > > It uses static has
On 01/04/2018 6:25 AM, David Miller wrote:
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 12:58:41 -0700
IP defrag processing is one of the remaining problematic layer in linux.
It uses static hash tables of 1024 buckets, and up to 128 items per bucket.
A work queue is supposed to garbage colle
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 12:58:41 -0700
> IP defrag processing is one of the remaining problematic layer in linux.
>
> It uses static hash tables of 1024 buckets, and up to 128 items per bucket.
>
> A work queue is supposed to garbage collect items when host is under memory
> p
IP defrag processing is one of the remaining problematic layer in linux.
It uses static hash tables of 1024 buckets, and up to 128 items per bucket.
A work queue is supposed to garbage collect items when host is under memory
pressure, and doing a hash rebuild, changing seed used in hash computati
13 matches
Mail list logo
