From nobody Thu Oct 17 09:03:20 2024 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4XThhw2rPcz5Ykg5 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:04:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ccfreebsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-lf1-f49.google.com (mail-lf1-f49.google.com [209.85.167.49]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "WR4" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4XThhw154hz4FXX for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:04:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ccfreebsd@gmail.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: by mail-lf1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-539ea686fd7so96132e87.2 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 02:04:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1729155838; x=1729760638; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=gj7s9ca58oAlw663j9CjctWeGrX6ZM4FJVE8aduq8RU=; b=APp1v+v+r90bARRaiCw0FjfIiDWp5EW5MJDlkSIaClRaT2AcvRCfV2GSkhzdzqhbzo IiWg4b1+a89SbflpeIlXh5cDtO8Ng7N5W1yO7bHHFZjlL09t8dfotgTDUnQeePb8P7aN K88Ge+xfSXJG0b5WzQh/QB/gLx46BiM2RCrSuPesoFlnNZ5T952rOVKWakKoiDE0w0Vs wfFwMBeX5Duu9IwVG2zk1cyRcpeY32PJtIB2LjpqpU2LTHnVrk9cKIT1YvQXrqddMHZ4 P2MU+wvntRkR+Iorz2aUvyy0ButkloVz39NDQmt6xx25XttG9C6ij3bxRNqlXQ+yD8Ec rcMw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzMPuD7ue0eWpYqz07WaTgeVVxs9N7y/mCWnhwXWVAAf3cpIvp9 MBsFQZLIEOPW30ZM5BhiSW3/Ol4bPgBzHRjrBMmSWJA1QS4zAP++zbJrC/EL X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE3kSlc+8ytWNl6nrvKnQjHknqU3XvJOos4x8OtatURShWdz5WUWNmw58qJ4+WfMFYd9XKPig== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:bc18:0:b0:2fb:3e40:a8fc with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2fb6df10446mr3981581fa.5.1729155837130; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 02:03:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f54.google.com (mail-lf1-f54.google.com. [209.85.167.54]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 38308e7fff4ca-2fb5d0fdf5csm6663501fa.14.2024.10.17.02.03.56 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Oct 2024 02:03:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f54.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-539e576d665so87620e87.1 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 02:03:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:2125:b0:2fb:56c1:c4 with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2fb6deeee40mr3674971fa.3.1729155836658; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 02:03:56 -0700 (PDT) List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240912181618.7895d10ad5ff2ebae9883192@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Cheng Cui Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 05:03:20 -0400 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: Performance issues with vnet jails + epair + bridge To: void Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000067d6b70624a8771f" X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4XThhw154hz4FXX X-Spamd-Bar: ---- --00000000000067d6b70624a8771f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for your testing! From your VM test result in the link, if I understand correctly, the CUBIC in base stack has +24.5% better performance than the CUBIC in rack stack, and it is better than old releases and OpenBSD. That sounds like an improvement, although it still needs to be improved to catch up with the Linux kernel. FreeBSD 15.0-CURRENT base_stack: 807 Mbits/sec FreeBSD 15.0-CURRENT rack_stack: 648 Mbits/sec FreeBSD 14.0-RELEASE: 594 Mbits/sec FreeBSD 14.0-RELEASE-p11: 478 Mbits/sec FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE-p5: 551 Mbits/sec OpenBSD 7.5: 676 Mbits/sec Linux 6.6.52-0-virt: 941 Mbits/sec cc On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 8:16=E2=80=AFPM void wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 09:48:58AM -0400, Cheng Cui wrote: > >I am not sure if you are using FreeBSD15-CURRENT for testing in VMs. > >But given your iperf3 test result has retransmissions, if you can try, > there > >is a recent VM friendly improvement from TCP congestion control CUBIC. > > I did some further testing, also rack v. non-rack. > > http://void.f-m.fm.user.fm/speedtests-cubic.txt > -- > > --=20 Best Regards, Cheng Cui --00000000000067d6b70624a8771f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for your testing!

Fro= m your VM test result in the link, if I understand correctly, the CUBIC in = base stack has +24.5% better performance than the CUBIC in rack stack, and = it is better than old releases and OpenBSD. That sounds like an improvement= , although it still needs to be improved to catch up with the Linux kernel.=

FreeBSD 15.0-CURREN= T base_stack: 807 Mbits/sec
FreeBSD 15.0-CURRENT rack_stack: 648 Mbits/s= ec
FreeBSD 14.0-RELEASE: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0594 Mb= its/sec
FreeBSD 14.0-RELEASE-p11: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0478 Mbits/s= ec
FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE-p5: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 551 Mbits/secOpenBSD 7.5: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 676 Mbits/sec
Linux 6.6.52-0-virt: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 941 Mbits/sec

cc

= On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 8:16=E2=80=AFPM void <void@f-m.fm> wrote:
Hi,

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 09:48:58AM -0400, Cheng Cui wrote:
>I am not sure if you are using FreeBSD15-CURRENT for testing in VMs. >But given your iperf3 test result has retransmissions, if you can try, = there
>is a recent VM friendly improvement from TCP congestion control CUBIC.<= br>
I did some further testing, also rack v. non-rack.

http://void.f-m.fm.user.fm/speedtests-cubic.txt --



--
Best Regards,
Cheng Cui
--00000000000067d6b70624a8771f--