Re: tcp bw in 2.6

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Larry McVoy <lm@...>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...>, <torvalds@...>, <herbert@...>, <wscott@...>, <netdev@...>
Date: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 - 6:59 pm

Larry McVoy wrote:

Indeed I was getting more like 8K on each recv() call per netperf's -v 2 stats, 
but the system was more than fast enough to stay ahead of the traffic.  On the 
hunch that it was the interrupt throttling which was keeping the recv's large 
rather than the speed of the system(s) I nuked the InterruptThrottleRate to 0 
and was able to get between 1900 and 2300 byte recvs on the TCP_STREAM and 
TCP_MAERTS tests and still had 940 Mbit/s in each direction.

hpcpc106:~# netperf -H 192.168.7.107 -t TCP_STREAM -v 2 -c -C
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.7.107 
(192.168.7.107) port 0 AF_INET
Recv   Send    Send                          Utilization       Service Demand
Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed              Send     Recv     Send    Recv
Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput  local    remote   local   remote
bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/s  % S      % S      us/KB   us/KB

  87380  87380  87380    10.02       940.95   10.75    21.65    3.743   7.540

Alignment      Offset         Bytes    Bytes       Sends   Bytes    Recvs
Local  Remote  Local  Remote  Xfered   Per                 Per
Send   Recv    Send   Recv             Send (avg)          Recv (avg)
     8       8      0       0 1.179e+09  87386.29     13491   1965.77 599729

Maximum
Segment
Size (bytes)
   1448
hpcpc106:~# netperf -H 192.168.7.107 -t TCP_MAERTS -v 2 -c -C
TCP MAERTS TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.7.107 
(192.168.7.107) port 0 AF_INET
Recv   Send    Send                          Utilization       Service Demand
Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed              Send     Recv     Send    Recv
Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput  local    remote   local   remote
bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/s  % S      % S      us/KB   us/KB

  87380  87380  87380    10.02       940.82   20.44    10.61    7.117   3.696

Alignment      Offset         Bytes    Bytes       Recvs   Bytes    Sends
Local  Remote  Local  Remote  Xfered   Per                 Per
Recv   Send    Recv   Send             Recv (avg)          Send (avg)
     8       8      0       0 1.178e+09  2352.26    500931   87380.00  13485

Maximum
Segment
Size (bytes)
   1448

the systems above had four 1.6 GHz cores, netperf reports CPU as 0 to 100% 
regardless of core count.

and then my systems with the 3.0 GHz cores:

[root@s9 netperf2_trunk]# netperf -H sweb20 -v 2 -t TCP_STREAM -c -C
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to sweb20.cup.hp.com 
(16.89.133.20) port 0 AF_INET
Recv   Send    Send                          Utilization       Service Demand
Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed              Send     Recv     Send    Recv
Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput  local    remote   local   remote
bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/s  % S      % S      us/KB   us/KB

  87380  16384  16384    10.03       941.37   6.40     13.26    2.229   4.615

Alignment      Offset         Bytes    Bytes       Sends   Bytes    Recvs
Local  Remote  Local  Remote  Xfered   Per                 Per
Send   Recv    Send   Recv             Send (avg)          Recv (avg)
     8       8      0       0 1.18e+09  16384.06     72035   1453.85 811793

Maximum
Segment
Size (bytes)
   1448
[root@s9 netperf2_trunk]# netperf -H sweb20 -v 2 -t TCP_MAERTS -c -C
TCP MAERTS TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to sweb20.cup.hp.com 
(16.89.133.20) port 0 AF_INET
Recv   Send    Send                          Utilization       Service Demand
Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed              Send     Recv     Send    Recv
Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput  local    remote   local   remote
bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/s  % S      % S      us/KB   us/KB

  87380  16384  16384    10.03       941.35   12.13    5.80     4.221   2.018

Alignment      Offset         Bytes    Bytes       Recvs   Bytes    Sends
Local  Remote  Local  Remote  Xfered   Per                 Per
Recv   Send    Recv   Send             Recv (avg)          Send (avg)
     8       8      0       0 1.181e+09  1452.38    812953   16384.00  72065

Maximum
Segment
Size (bytes)
   1448


rick jones
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Mon Oct 1, 8:59 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Herbert Xu, (Tue Oct 2, 6:52 am)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 11:09 am)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Oct 2, 3:27 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Rick Jones, (Tue Oct 2, 3:53 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, David Miller, (Tue Oct 2, 4:33 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Roland Dreier, (Tue Oct 2, 4:44 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 5:21 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Pekka Pietikainen, (Wed Oct 3, 5:13 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Wed Oct 3, 5:23 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Pekka Pietikainen, (Wed Oct 3, 5:50 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, John Heffner, (Tue Oct 2, 2:29 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 3:07 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Oct 2, 3:29 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, David Miller, (Tue Oct 2, 4:31 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 3:33 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, John Heffner, (Tue Oct 2, 3:53 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 4:14 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Rick Jones, (Tue Oct 2, 4:40 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Wayne Scott, (Tue Oct 2, 4:42 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Oct 2, 5:56 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 11:41 am)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Oct 2, 12:34 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 12:48 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, David Miller, (Tue Oct 2, 5:16 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 5:26 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, David Miller, (Tue Oct 2, 5:47 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Rick Jones, (Tue Oct 2, 6:17 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, David Miller, (Tue Oct 2, 6:32 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 6:36 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Rick Jones, (Tue Oct 2, 6:59 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, David Miller, (Wed Oct 3, 4:02 am)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Ben Greear, (Tue Oct 2, 12:48 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 1:11 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Ben Greear, (Tue Oct 2, 1:18 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 1:21 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Stephen Hemminger, (Tue Oct 2, 1:54 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 2:35 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 12:25 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Stephen Hemminger, (Tue Oct 2, 12:47 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Daniel Schaffrath, (Mon Oct 15, 8:40 am)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Stephen Hemminger, (Mon Oct 15, 11:49 am)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 12:49 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Stephen Hemminger, (Tue Oct 2, 1:10 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Oct 1, 10:14 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Mon Oct 1, 10:20 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Rick Jones, (Tue Oct 2, 1:14 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Bill Fink, (Wed Oct 3, 3:19 am)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 1:20 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Rick Jones, (Tue Oct 2, 2:01 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 2:40 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Rick Jones, (Tue Oct 2, 3:47 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, David Miller, (Tue Oct 2, 5:32 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, John Heffner, (Tue Oct 2, 11:06 am)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, David Miller, (Mon Oct 1, 11:50 pm)
Re: tcp bw in 2.6, Larry McVoy, (Tue Oct 2, 12:23 am)