Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 05:24:55 +0000 (UTC) From: Nomad Esst <noname.esst@yahoo.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> Cc: Freebsd Hackers List <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: em. igb performance test Message-ID: <2036397629.2295424.1441517095478.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmo=pNj=tu8Cp5Xy2Xdn0FB6bn7BQ6LySyHURbErjm=8rBA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-Vmo=pNj=tu8Cp5Xy2Xdn0FB6bn7BQ6LySyHURbErjm=8rBA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks for your reply. How can I solve this problem? e.g. speed up the link negotiation, buffer the packets while link negotiation is being done ? Any ideas?
Regards.
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 8:01 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
It's likely a combination of STP and how long it takes to do link
negotiation. Packets transmitted during link negotiation will be lost.
-adrian
On 5 September 2015 at 08:03, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 02:45:28PM +0000, Nomad Esst via freebsd-hackers wrote:
>
>> Hi allDuring some performance tests, we found out some weird problems. We use a shell script that do the following :
>> do from 1 to 10Shutdown em/igb interfacesleep 3Bring em/igb interface uptcpreplay -i em0 -l ospf_hello.pcap sleep3end
>> By running this shell on one side we expect 10 ospf hello packets to get arrived at the other side, but tcpdump (on the other side) shows 4, sometimes 8 and etc ... (not all 10 packets are arrived at the other side).We test this scenario with a Cisco router, and all packets are received at the Cisco side. What causes this packet loss in FreeBSD (maybe in em or igb drivers)?I know that this scenario may not have any use in the real world, but I'm curious, why Cisco don't have such behavior.Thanks in advance.
>
> uping interface not momentaly.
> packets sending to down interface will be lost.
> try to wait `status: active` before run tcpreplay.
> Also, check STP off on interconnect switch you port.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Sun Sep 6 06:48:27 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
[IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB9F69CB2DE
for <freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
Sun, 6 Sep 2015 06:48:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru)
Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(Client did not present a certificate)
by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 668E8BB9
for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 6 Sep 2015 06:48:27 +0000 (UTC)
(envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru)
Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.84 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from <slw@zxy.spb.ru>)
id 1ZYTkS-000ByV-RS; Sun, 06 Sep 2015 09:48:20 +0300
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 09:48:20 +0300
From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru>
To: Nomad Esst <noname.esst@yahoo.com>
Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com>,
Freebsd Hackers List <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: em. igb performance test
Message-ID: <20150906064820.GH21849@zxy.spb.ru>
References: <CAJ-Vmo=pNj=tu8Cp5Xy2Xdn0FB6bn7BQ6LySyHURbErjm=8rBA@mail.gmail.com>
<2036397629.2295424.1441517095478.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2036397629.2295424.1441517095478.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-hackers>,
<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/>;
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2015 06:48:27 -0000
On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 05:24:55AM +0000, Nomad Esst via freebsd-hackers wrote:
> Thanks for your reply. How can I solve this problem? e.g. speed up the link negotiation, buffer the packets while link negotiation is being done ? Any ideas?
> Regards.
try this for wait carrier:
until ifconfig em0 | grep -q 'status: active'
do
echo waiting carrier...
sleep 1
done
>
>
> On Saturday, September 5, 2015 8:01 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> It's likely a combination of STP and how long it takes to do link
> negotiation. Packets transmitted during link negotiation will be lost.
>
>
>
> -adrian
>
>
> On 5 September 2015 at 08:03, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 02:45:28PM +0000, Nomad Esst via freebsd-hackers wrote:
> >
> >> Hi allDuring some performance tests, we found out some weird problems. We use a shell script that do the following :
> >> do from 1 to 10Shutdown em/igb interfacesleep 3Bring em/igb interface uptcpreplay -i em0 -l ospf_hello.pcap sleep3end
> >> By running this shell on one side we expect 10 ospf hello packets to get arrived at the other side, but tcpdump (on the other side) shows 4, sometimes 8 and etc ... (not all 10 packets are arrived at the other side).We test this scenario with a Cisco router, and all packets are received at the Cisco side. What causes this packet loss in FreeBSD (maybe in em or igb drivers)?I know that this scenario may not have any use in the real world, but I'm curious, why Cisco don't have such behavior.Thanks in advance.
> >
> > uping interface not momentaly.
> > packets sending to down interface will be lost.
> > try to wait `status: active` before run tcpreplay.
> > Also, check STP off on interconnect switch you port.
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
> > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2036397629.2295424.1441517095478.JavaMail.yahoo>