From nobody Tue Oct 22 15:31:18 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 4XXx3n41Txz5PbgH for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 15:31:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from void@f-m.fm) Received: from fhigh-a8-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a8-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.159]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4XXx3m27H9z4K8Z for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 15:31:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from void@f-m.fm) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=f-m.fm header.s=fm3 header.b=ZeV5ZjYa; dkim=pass header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm3 header.b=jf0FZO9A; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of void@f-m.fm designates 103.168.172.159 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=void@f-m.fm; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=f-m.fm Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.phl.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9000A114022E for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-02 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:31:30 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=f-m.fm; h=cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1729611090; x=1729697490; bh=oMvoUXzbzU 6czawSOWK64NvOKuU5JY4Rn3WFGoQ9DbM=; b=ZeV5ZjYa4oOZyU84KwHrFzzuQD 8HaS1MFET0nmu1EoXS3CTXK9ipAPxTDyWGW94Mn5ZWK2Pw3Dzi0Qq3SQxXZVswG8 ya4fS9yjPryDKkpo6eBcuUSngBvEEXeE2ucGOWYu+xmZnJ6TbM3vtwqISG0E1+07 v5ab6wXfBO2gFXDKFw6seYxFx8KeXIi5EsJZzGQNjdxtRndplykvkwFrkZ+Nl3JK yvNo/bSleDD9ZTMKvKvsJWGC1JImj4pFrG7by95yQ9uM/cTwmAyXNdtWaMxq2Fiv j+ZKUrmwJrKZAB8UbfFWM70E8JmmA0IUUGA9H/yWFK8mlAb/rGpsvteIEqrQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1729611090; x=1729697490; bh=oMvoUXzbzU6czawSOWK64NvOKuU5 JY4Rn3WFGoQ9DbM=; b=jf0FZO9A+52Bk8oZT+rR3JaNOIPdlrxoAU5IXn/vAr/2 jNyCOp6feROCs7HZ6GgrVpXfwyqOJE98YlqpfsE9DNYBvobfYuw+rOdkjaiKzwZO AdCfnEKvWq+/1+dx7gBbmWGfDHWtB/iZiBpfowouPvGv+TqsfcGu/qNkZBTouZDG Zefbep81s6f74AKJwyXRGaVkmSWFUkGf+31NsrLhxJe5aGvIfp6nylZjn7+iGYc1 M/jCit5nBIt68KOqXOkikkqSONx30EVOqIJDP+eLvbIA22w9EF10ppORWxNwp0r9 Xl5dTNZQbeIN7V8UsDgR3crW8wXfBCNHS9DL56bi8w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrvdeihedgkeekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvuf fkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvhhoihguuceovhhoihgusehfqdhm rdhfmheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepkeeluddvlefhieelfefggffhffektdehleelgf dugfdvgeekjeejuddtheehgfeunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghm pehmrghilhhfrhhomhepvhhoihgusehfqdhmrdhfmhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepuddpmh houggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepfhhrvggvsghsugdqnhgvthesfhhrvggv sghsugdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i2541463c:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:31:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:31:18 +0100 From: void To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance test for CUBIC in stable/14 Message-ID: References: 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.80 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[f-m.fm,none]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[f-m.fm:s=fm3,messagingengine.com:s=fm3]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_VERYGOOD(-0.20)[103.168.172.159:from]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:103.168.172.128/27]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[103.168.172.159:from]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[f-m.fm]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[f-m.fm]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-net@freebsd.org]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[f-m.fm:+,messagingengine.com:+]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-net@freebsd.org]; ASN(0.00)[asn:151847, ipnet:103.168.172.0/24, country:AU]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[messagingengine.com:dkim] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4XXx3m27H9z4K8Z X-Spamd-Bar: --- On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 10:59:28AM -0400, Cheng Cui wrote: > Please re-organize your test result in before/after patch order. So that I > can understand and compare them. Sure. Before: [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 1] 0.00-60.02 sec 5.16 GBytes 738 Mbits/sec After: [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 1] 0.00-60.01 sec 4.87 GBytes 697 Mbits/sec I was surprised as well. These numbers seem to be within the margin of error. I tested 'After' again just now: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-60.06 sec 5.15 GBytes 737 Mbits/sec 963 sender [ 5] 0.00-60.06 sec 5.15 GBytes 737 Mbits/sec receiver iperf Done. I can spin up another couple of unmodified VMs if you like - they'll be created from older stable/14 snapshots - and compare against those. --