From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 5 11:24:12 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5AE16A418; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:24:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com) Received: from blah.sun-fish.com (blah.sun-fish.com [217.18.249.150]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 210FF13C4DB; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:24:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com) Received: by blah.sun-fish.com (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 548961B10F42; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:24:10 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on blah.cmotd.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.6 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Received: from hater.haters.org (hater.cmotd.com [192.168.3.125]) by blah.sun-fish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657431B10F31; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:24:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47A84751.8020109@moneybookers.com> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:24:01 +0200 From: Stefan Lambrev User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071120) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Thompson References: <4794E6CC.1050107@moneybookers.com> <47A0B023.5020401@moneybookers.com> <47A3074A.3040409@moneybookers.com> <47A72EAB.6070602@moneybookers.com> <20080204182945.GA49276@heff.fud.org.nz> <47A780C0.2060201@moneybookers.com> <47A799A6.3070502@moneybookers.com> In-Reply-To: <47A799A6.3070502@moneybookers.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.2/5692/Tue Feb 5 08:21:55 2008 on blah.cmotd.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: network performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:24:12 -0000 Greetings, Stefan Lambrev wrote: > Stefan Lambrev wrote: >> Andrew Thompson wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:26:35PM +0200, Stefan Lambrev wrote: >>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> >>>> In my desire to increase network throughput, and to be able to >>>> handle more then ~250-270kpps >>>> I started experimenting with lagg and link aggregation control >>>> protocol (lacp). >>>> To my surprise this doesn't increase the amount of packets my >>>> server can handle >>>> >>>> Using lagg doesn't improve situation at all, and also errors are >>>> not reported. >>>> Also using lagg increased content switches: >>>> >>>> Top showed for CPU states +55% system, which is quite high? >>>> >>>> I'll use hwpmc and lock_profiling to see where the kernel spends >>>> it's time. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for investigating this. One thing to note is that ip flows from >>> the same connection always go down the same interface, this is because >>> Ethernet is not allowed to reorder frames. The hash uses >>> src-mac, dst-mac, src-ip and dst-ip (see lagg_hashmbuf), make sure when >>> performance testing that your traffic varies in these values. Adding >>> tcp/udp ports to the hashing may help. >>> >> The traffic, that I generate is with random/spoofed src part, so it >> is split between interfaces for sure :) >> >> Here you can find results when under load from hwpmc and lock_profiling: >> http://89.186.204.158/lock_profiling-lagg.txt >> http://89.186.204.158/lagg-gprof.txt >> > http://89.186.204.158/lagg2-gprof.txt I forget this file :) > I found that MD5Transform aways uses ~14% (with rx/txcsum enabled or disabled). And when using without lagg MD5Transform pick up to 20% of the time. Is this normal? -- Best Wishes, Stefan Lambrev ICQ# 24134177