Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 18 Jul 2014 01:03:55 -0700
From:      Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
To:        araujo@freebsd.org
Cc:        FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: [patch][lagg] - Set a better granularity and distribution on roundrobin protocol.
Message-ID:  <CAJ-VmomH6RqK92s1wO8C3w3nZTcV=qsgnOU7GFX2SxDU8uMysA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOfEmZhtZCettzD6pKQMHRiQE42nQmBuimOq28cA23R%2BYyc13w@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAOfEmZjmb1bdvn0gR6vD1WeP8o8g7KwXod4TE0iJfa=nicyeng@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmomt2QDXAVBVUk6m8oH4Pa5yErDdG6wWrP3X7%2BDW137xiA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOfEmZja8Tkv_xG8LyR5Nbj%2BOga=vvdy=b3pxHqZi0-BBq25Uw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmomY2wP1EyVK4J16sGmMid=sJ9MPZrUY6pgcKGBDXm1T4g@mail.gmail.com> <CAOfEmZj5pk7bFB-PBqaJsi%2BbA73gbsUZzqggs4yEVky3_61NpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOfEmZhtZCettzD6pKQMHRiQE42nQmBuimOq28cA23R%2BYyc13w@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,

I strongly object to having a round-robin method like this. Yes, we
won't get > 1 link of bandwidth out of a single stream, but you're
showing that you can't even get that. There's still something else
weird going on.

I'm sorry, but introducing more out of order possibilities is being a
bad network citizen.



-a


On 18 July 2014 00:49, Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdport@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> I made few changes on the lagg(4) patch. Also, I made tests using igb(4),
> ixgbe(4) and em(4); seems everything worked pretty well.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone else could make a review, and what I need to do, to
> see this patch committed.
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
>
> 2014-06-24 10:40 GMT+08:00 Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdport@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>>
>> 2014-06-24 6:54 GMT+08:00 Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> No, don't introduce out of order behaviour. Ever.
>>
>>
>> Yes, it has out of order behavior; with my patch much less. I upload two
>> pcap files and you can see by yourself, if you don't believe in what I'm
>> talking about.
>>
>> Test done using: "iperf -s" and "iperf -c <ip> -i 1 -t 10".
>>
>> 1) Don't change the number of packets(default round robin behavior).
>> http://people.freebsd.org/~araujo/lagg/lagg-nop.cap
>> 8 out of order packets.
>> Several SACKs.
>>
>> 2) Set the number of packets to 50.
>> http://people.freebsd.org/~araujo/lagg/lagg.cap
>> 0 out of order packets.
>> Less SACKs.
>>
>>>
>>> You may not think
>>> it's a problem for TCP, but UDP things and VPN things will start
>>> getting very angry. There are VPN configurations out there that will
>>> drop the VPN if frames are out of order.
>>
>>
>> I'm not thinking that will be a problem for TCP, but, in somehow it will
>> be, less throughput as I showed before, and less SACK. About the VPN,
>> please, tell me which softwares, and let me know where I can get a sample to
>> make a testbed.
>>
>> However to be very honest, I don't believe anyone here when change
>> something at network protocols will make this extensive testbed. It is
>> almost impossible to predict what software it will works or not, and I don't
>> believe anyone here has all these stuff in hands.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The ixgbe driver is setting the flowid to the msix queue ID, rather
>>> than a 32 bit unique flow id hash value for the flow. That makes it
>>> hard to do traffic distribution where the flowid is available.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There's an lagg option to re-hash the mbuf rather than rely on the
>>> flowid for outbound port choice - have you looked at using that? Did
>>> that make any difference?
>>
>>
>> Yes, I set to 0 the net.link.lagg.0.use _flowid, it make a little
>> difference to the default round robin implementation, but yet I can't reach
>> more than 5 Gbit/s. With my patch and set the packets to 50, it improved a
>> bit too.
>>
>> So, thank you so much for all review, I don't know if you have time and a
>> testbed to make a real test, as I'm doing. I would be happy if you or more
>> people could make tests on that patch. Also, I have only ixgbe(4) to make
>> tests, would appreciate if this patch could be tested with other NICs too.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Marcelo Araujo            (__)
>> araujo@FreeBSD.org     \\\'',)
>> http://www.FreeBSD.org   \/  \ ^
>> Power To Server.         .\. /_)
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> Marcelo Araujo            (__)
> araujo@FreeBSD.org     \\\'',)
> http://www.FreeBSD.org   \/  \ ^
> Power To Server.         .\. /_)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmomH6RqK92s1wO8C3w3nZTcV=qsgnOU7GFX2SxDU8uMysA>