Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 19:43:58 -0700 From: Navdeep Parhar <nparhar@gmail.com> To: araujo@FreeBSD.org Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [patch][lagg] - Set a better granularity and distribution on roundrobin protocol. Message-ID: <53C9DB6E.8040205@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOfEmZigg8_3b073aEU7kJd9i%2BjLFOVvAV_V4aU0jHOAJGLVBg@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> <53C964F7.8060503@gmail.com> <CAOfEmZigg8_3b073aEU7kJd9i%2BjLFOVvAV_V4aU0jHOAJGLVBg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/18/14 19:06, Marcelo Araujo wrote: > > > > 2014-07-19 2:18 GMT+08:00 Navdeep Parhar <nparhar@gmail.com > <mailto:nparhar@gmail.com>>: > > On 07/18/14 00:49, Marcelo Araujo 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. > > Deliberately putting out-of-order packets on the wire is never a good > idea. This would count as a serious regression in lagg(4) imho. > > Regards, > Navdeep > > > > I'm wondering if anyone have tested the patch; because as I have > explained in another email, the number of SACK is much less with this > patch. I have put some pcap files > here: http://people.freebsd.org/~araujo/lagg/ > > Also, as far as I know, the current roundrobin implementation has no > such kind of mechanism to control the order of the packages that goes to > the wire. And this patch, what it only does is, instead to send only one > package through one interface and switch to the another one, it will > send X(where X is the number of packets defined via sysctl) packets and > then, switch to the next interface. > > So, could you show me, where this patch deliberately put out-of-order > packets? Did I miss anything? Are you saying lagg's roundrobin implementation is already spraying packets for the same flow across interfaces? That would make it unsuitable for anything TCP. But then your patch isn't making it any worse so I don't have any objection to it any more. Looks like loadbalance does the right thing for flows. Regards, Navdeep
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53C9DB6E.8040205>