Steven, Thanks for the help. As before, setup is described @ https://gist.github.com/egernst/5982ae6f0590cd83330faafacc3fd545 (updated since I no longer am using the evil feature mask).
I'm going to need to read up on what coalesce frames setting is doing .... Without that set, you can find my output from iperf3 appended. No retransmissions in the output, and no errors observed on VPP side (that is, nothing notable in systemctl status vpp). When I set coalesce frames I see *major* improvements -- getting in the ballbark of what I would expect for a single thread; about 2 gbps. Phew -a major relief . Couple things: 1) So, can you tell me more about what this is doing, and why this isn't enabled by default. 2) Is there a straight forward way to monitor VPP setup (particular counters) to identify where the issue is? Thanks again! Cheers, Eric ------- *Server*: # iperf3 -s ----------------------------------------------------------- Server listening on 5201 ----------------------------------------------------------- Accepted connection from 192.168.0.2, port 41058 [ 5] local 192.168.0.1 port 5201 connected to 192.168.0.2 port 41060 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 12.8 MBytes 107 Mbits/sec [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 7.93 MBytes 66.5 Mbits/sec [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 7.94 MBytes 66.6 Mbits/sec [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 5.37 MBytes 45.0 Mbits/sec [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 5.29 MBytes 44.4 Mbits/sec [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 4.28 MBytes 35.9 Mbits/sec [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 4.14 MBytes 34.8 Mbits/sec [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 4.14 MBytes 34.7 Mbits/sec [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 4.14 MBytes 34.8 Mbits/sec [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 4.14 MBytes 34.7 Mbits/sec [ 5] 10.00-10.03 sec 133 KBytes 34.9 Mbits/sec - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 5] 0.00-10.03 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec sender [ 5] 0.00-10.03 sec 60.3 MBytes 50.4 Mbits/sec receiver ----------------------------------------------------------- Server listening on 5201 ----------------------------------------------------------- *Client*: # iperf3 -c 192.168.0.1 Connecting to host 192.168.0.1, port 5201 [ 4] local 192.168.0.2 port 41060 connected to 192.168.0.1 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr Cwnd [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 13.8 MBytes 116 Mbits/sec 0 8.48 KBytes [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 8.05 MBytes 67.5 Mbits/sec 0 8.48 KBytes [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 7.74 MBytes 64.9 Mbits/sec 0 8.48 KBytes [ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 5.28 MBytes 44.3 Mbits/sec 0 5.66 KBytes [ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 5.28 MBytes 44.3 Mbits/sec 0 5.66 KBytes [ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 4.35 MBytes 36.5 Mbits/sec 0 5.66 KBytes [ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 4.04 MBytes 33.9 Mbits/sec 0 5.66 KBytes [ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 4.35 MBytes 36.5 Mbits/sec 0 5.66 KBytes [ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 4.04 MBytes 33.9 Mbits/sec 0 5.66 KBytes [ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 4.04 MBytes 33.9 Mbits/sec 0 5.66 KBytes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 61.0 MBytes 51.2 Mbits/sec 0 sender [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 60.3 MBytes 50.6 Mbits/sec receiver iperf Done. ----- -----Original Message----- From: Steven Luong (sluong) [mailto:slu...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 3:05 PM To: Ernst, Eric <eric.er...@intel.com>; Billy McFall <bmcf...@redhat.com> Cc: Damjan Marion (damarion) <damar...@cisco.com>; vpp-dev@lists.fd.io Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] Connectivity issue when using vhost-user on 17.04? Eric, As a first step, please share the output of iperf3 to see how many retransmissions that you have for the run. From VPP, please collect show errors to see if vhost drops anything. As an additional data point for comparison, please also try disabling vhost coalesce to see if you get better result by adding the following configuration to /etc/vpp/startup.conf vhost-user { coalesce-frames 0 } Steven On 4/20/17, 2:19 PM, "vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io on behalf of Ernst, Eric" <vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io on behalf of eric.er...@intel.com> wrote: Thanks Billy - it was through some examples that i had found that I ended up grabbing that. I reinstalled 1704 and can verify connectivity when removing the evil feature-mask. Thanks for the quick feedback, Damjan. If we could only go back in time! Now if I could just figure out why I'm getting capped bandwidth (via iperf) of ~45 mbps between two VMs on the same socket on a sandybridge xeon, I will be really happy! If anyone has suggestions on debug methods for this, it'd be appreciated. I see a huge difference when switching to ovs vhost-user, keeping all else the same. --Eric On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:29:23PM -0400, Billy McFall wrote: > The vHost examples on the Wiki used the feature-mask of 0xFF. I think that > is how it got propagated. In 16.09 when I did the CLI documentation for the > vHost, I expanded what the bits meant and used feature-mask 0x40400000 as > the example. I will gladly add an additional comment indicating that the > recommended use is to leave blank if this was intended to be debug. > > https://docs.fd.io/vpp/17.07/clicmd_src_vnet_devices_virtio.html > > Billy > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Damjan Marion (damarion) < > damar...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > Eric, > > > > long time ago ( i think 3+ years) when I wrote original vhost-user driver > > in vpp, > > I added feature-mask knob to cli which messes up with feature bitmap > > purely for debugging > > reasons. > > > > And I regret many times… > > > > Somebody dig it out and documented it somewhere, for to me unknown reasons. > > Now it spreads like a virus and I cannot stop it :) > > > > So please don’t use it, it is evil…. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Damjan > > > > > On 20 Apr 2017, at 20:49, Ernst, Eric <eric.er...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > All, > > > > > > After updating the startup.conf to not reference DPDK, per direction in > > release > > > notification thread, I was able to startup vpp and create interfaces. > > > > > > Now that I'm testing, I noticed that I can no longer ping between VM > > hosts which > > > make use of vhost-user interfaces and are connected via l2 bridge domain > > > (nor l2 xconnect). I double checked, then reverted back to 17.01, where > > I could > > > again verify connectivity between the guests. > > > > > > Any else seeing this, or was there a change in how this should be set > > up? For > > > reference, I have my (simple) setup described @ a gist at [1]. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > eric > > > > > > > > > [1] - https://gist.github.com/egernst/5982ae6f0590cd83330faafacc3fd545 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > vpp-dev mailing list > > > vpp-dev@lists.fd.io > > > https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > vpp-dev mailing list > > vpp-dev@lists.fd.io > > https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev > > > > > -- > *Billy McFall* > SDN Group > Office of Technology > *Red Hat* _______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev _______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
