Hi Roman, I ran UDP-based iperf and it made no difference.
Thanks for your input On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 7:53 AM Roman Mamedov <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 9 May 2023 15:17:00 -0700 > Rumen Telbizov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Baseline iperf3 performance over plain VLAN: > > * Stable 24Gbit/s and 2Mpps > > > > bmon: > > Gb (RX Bits/second) > > 24.54 .........|.||..|.||.||.||||||..||.||....................... > > 20.45 .........|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||..................... > > 16.36 ........||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||..................... > > 12.27 ........||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||..................... > > 8.18 ........|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||..................... > > 4.09 ::::::::|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||::::::::::::::::::::: > > 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 > > M (RX Packets/second) > > 2.03 .........|.||..|.||.||.||||||..||.||........................ > > 1.69 .........|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||...................... > > 1.35 ........||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||...................... > > 1.01 ........||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||...................... > > 0.68 ........|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||..................... > > 0.34 ::::::::|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||::::::::::::::::::::: > > 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 > > > > top: > > %Cpu0 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni,100.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, > > 0.0 st > > %Cpu1 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni,100.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, > > 0.0 st > > %Cpu2 : 1.0 us, 1.0 sy, 0.0 ni, 98.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, > > 0.0 st > > %Cpu3 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni,100.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, > > 0.0 st > > %Cpu4 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni,100.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, > > 0.0 st > > %Cpu5 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni,100.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, > > 0.0 st > > %Cpu6 : 1.0 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni, 99.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, > > 0.0 st > > %Cpu7 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni,100.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, > > 0.0 st > > %Cpu8 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni,100.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, > > 0.0 st > > %Cpu9 : 1.0 us, 1.0 sy, 0.0 ni, 98.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, > > 0.0 st > > %Cpu10 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni,100.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, > > 0.0 st > > %Cpu11 : 0.0 us, 0.9 sy, 0.0 ni, 16.8 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 82.2 si, > > 0.0 st > > %Cpu12 : 0.0 us, 32.3 sy, 0.0 ni, 65.6 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 2.1 si, > > 0.0 st > > %Cpu13 : 1.0 us, 36.3 sy, 0.0 ni, 59.8 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 2.9 si, > > 0.0 st > > %Cpu14 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni,100.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, > > 0.0 st > > %Cpu15 : 0.0 us, 1.0 sy, 0.0 ni, 99.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, > > 0.0 st > > > > The IRQs do pile up behind CPU 11 because iperf3 is single-threaded. > > I'm not sure if they pile up because of that, or because of the same reason > you point in WG's case, the 5-tuple being the same for the single TCP > connection of iperf3. > > Out of interest, maybe you could try iperf3's UDP mode, and apply the same > port randomization trick as you used for WG, and see if it also makes it see > the better IRQ distribution, and the speed drop? > > -- > With respect, > Roman
