From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 4 21:16:54 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 9858316A41A; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:16:54 +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 5200913C45B; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:16:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com) Received: by blah.sun-fish.com (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 1F8741B10F39; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:16:53 +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 [10.1.1.2] (unknown [192.168.25.10]) by blah.sun-fish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 925E01B10F1F; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:16:50 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47A780C0.2060201@moneybookers.com> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:16:48 +0200 From: Stefan Lambrev User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) 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> In-Reply-To: <20080204182945.GA49276@heff.fud.org.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:16:54 -0000 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