Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
> Sorry. that i interfere in this subject.
>
> Do you recommend CONFIG_IRQBALANCE to be enabled?
I certainly do not. Manual tweaking and pinning the irq's to the correct CPU
will
give the best performance (for specific loads).
The userspace irqbalance daemon tries ve
Sorry. that i interfere in this subject.
Do you recommend CONFIG_IRQBALANCE to be enabled?
If it is enabled - irq's not jumping nonstop over processors. softirqd
changing this behavior.
If it is disabled, irq's distributed over each processor, and in loaded
systems it seems harmful.
I work a l
From: Benny Amorsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:09:32 +0100
> David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No IRQ balancing should be done at all for networking device
> > interrupts, with zero exceptions. It destroys performance.
>
> Does irqbalanced need to be taught about
Breno Leitao wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 17:48 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Breno Leitao a écrit :
Take a look at the interrupt table this time:
io-dolphins:~/leitao # cat /proc/interrupts | grep eth[1]*[67]
277: 151362450 13 14 13 14
15
Hello Denys,
I've installed sysstat (good tools!) and the result is very similar
to the one which appears at top, take a look:
13:34:23 CPU %user %nice%sys %iowait%irq %soft %steal
%idleintr/s
13:34:24 all0.000.002.720.000.25 12.130.99
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 17:48 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Breno Leitao a écrit :
> > Take a look at the interrupt table this time:
> >
> > io-dolphins:~/leitao # cat /proc/interrupts | grep eth[1]*[67]
> > 277: 151362450 13 14 13 14
> >15
Maybe good idea to use sysstat ?
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/sebastien.godard/
For example:
visp-1 ~ # mpstat -P ALL 1
Linux 2.6.24-rc7-devel (visp-1) 01/11/08
19:27:57 CPU %user %nice%sys %iowait%irq %soft %steal
%idleintr/s
19:27:58 all0.000.000.0
Breno Leitao a écrit :
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 12:52 -0800, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
Breno Leitao wrote:
When I run netperf in just one interface, I get 940.95 * 10^6 bits/sec
of transfer rate. If I run 4 netperf against 4 different interfaces, I
get around 720 * 10^6 bits/sec.
I
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 12:52 -0800, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
> Breno Leitao wrote:
> > When I run netperf in just one interface, I get 940.95 * 10^6 bits/sec
> > of transfer rate. If I run 4 netperf against 4 different interfaces, I
> > get around 720 * 10^6 bits/sec.
>
> I hope this explanation ma
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No IRQ balancing should be done at all for networking device
> interrupts, with zero exceptions. It destroys performance.
Does irqbalanced need to be taught about this? And how about the
initial balancing, so that each network card gets assigned to one
From: "Brandeburg, Jesse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:52:15 -0800
> I hope this explanation makes sense, but what it comes down to is that
> combining hardware round robin balancing with NAPI is a BAD IDEA.
Absolutely agreed on all counts.
No IRQ balancing should be done at all
Breno Leitao wrote:
> When I run netperf in just one interface, I get 940.95 * 10^6 bits/sec
> of transfer rate. If I run 4 netperf against 4 different interfaces, I
> get around 720 * 10^6 bits/sec.
This is actually a known issue that we have worked with your company
before on. It comes down to
I also tried to increase my interface MTU to 9000, but I am afraid that
netperf only transmits packets with less than 1500. Still investigating.
It may seem like picking a tiny nit, but netperf never transmits
packets. It only provides buffers of specified size to the stack. It is
then the st
Breno Leitao wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 16:36 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>> When I run netperf in just one interface, I get 940.95 * 10^6 bits/sec
>>> of transfer rate. If I run 4 netperf against 4 different interfaces, I
>>> get around 720 * 10^6 bits/sec.
>>
>>
>> I take it that's the aver
Many many things to check when running netperf :)
*) Are the cards on the same or separate PCImumble bus, and what sort of bus
*) is the two interface performance two interfaces on the same four-port
card, or an interface from each of the two four-port cards?
*) is there a dreaded (IMO) irqba
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 16:36 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > When I run netperf in just one interface, I get 940.95 * 10^6 bits/sec
> > of transfer rate. If I run 4 netperf against 4 different interfaces, I
> > get around 720 * 10^6 bits/sec.
>
>
> I take it that's the average for individual inter
Ben,
I am facing the performance issue when we try to bond the multiple
interfaces with virtual interface. It could be related to this thread.
My questions are,
*) When we use mulitple NICs, will the performance of overall system be
summation of all individual lines XX bits/sec. ?
*) What are th
Breno Leitao wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've perceived that there is a performance issue when running netperf
> against 4 e1000 links connected end-to-end to another machine with 4
> e1000 interfaces.
>
> I have 2 4-port interfaces on my machine, but the test is just
> considering 2 port for each inte
18 matches
Mail list logo
