From nobody Tue Oct 22 19:57:42 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 4XY2zd6mGQz5ZJZy for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:58:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ccfreebsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-lf1-f53.google.com (mail-lf1-f53.google.com [209.85.167.53]) (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 4XY2zd3bWJz4197 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 19:58:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ccfreebsd@gmail.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: by mail-lf1-f53.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-539e4908837so818692e87.0 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:58:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1729627100; x=1730231900; 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=CbeAGU4aBg8bxCOrA5PKVvxqT1GxmTF4thB2F1ZzInE=; b=p7uDh5TMT8bSI4+dDvMy5ykf5jcxI6JktrilHkxjMGDS0Q4rFSjn4gFjvdw7HQEWFu WOQvJzpRUR6GH8r23qiAsB+khwmm07o4K1h8UkMikOS6klbKcEJhzxjntDfFXN0CykYa vyP4jANuC2pIoKA54nQsadCb0LNf09vP6c67YcBv1+5CIDl4a3ICzggxXdaFXM97Wz4j XAPu4HIJlLK696EuoU+RyP3Rm9hLHKli8Ft3NLMVPvFA91a8LQz6C3FZEBy6xXhusHJM iyIJipf/f92bEatP3xymaoOCyjdeTw9/0nPnKCnBYfxiATF5nZrQhZcF0mRDKoPV98tB 07EQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxFtHuf/d4ojmasIRIeSAMHZ3YKGizt8s/nlgOf4S8bTW5+LeJp Hb1ShlDMv9q8PrWtALqxqdPCPXHD7yqQ+J90vSq/s/yWDzadFS1pInZOPbuI X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH7qsI/9vXq0MfHitBqhA7wkr+N/0Bfq6mc4ryAA+xdSJggzURS+bcHuWoLeJg82YQgc4hxog== X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1544:b0:2fb:5014:dd67 with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2fc9d1db9demr364571fa.0.1729627099392; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f46.google.com (mail-lf1-f46.google.com. [209.85.167.46]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 38308e7fff4ca-2fb9ad4b843sm8907931fa.4.2024.10.22.12.58.19 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f46.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-539ec09d690so763619e87.2 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:58:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3b85:b0:53a:40e:d560 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-53b1a303803mr12509e87.3.1729627098780; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:58:18 -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: In-Reply-To: From: Cheng Cui Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 15:57:42 -0400 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: Performance test for CUBIC in stable/14 To: void Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d124940625163050" 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: 4XY2zd3bWJz4197 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- --000000000000d124940625163050 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What is the output from `ping` (latency) between these VMs? cc On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 11:31=E2=80=AFAM void wrote: > 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 tha= t > 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. > > -- > > --=20 Best Regards, Cheng Cui --000000000000d124940625163050 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What is the output from `ping` (latency) between thes= e VMs?

cc

On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 11:31=E2=80=AFAM = void <void@f-m.fm> wrote:
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 th= at I
> can understand and compare them.

Sure.

Before:

[ ID] Interval=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Transfer=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Bandwi= dth
[=C2=A0 1] 0.00-60.02 sec=C2=A0 5.16 GBytes=C2=A0 =C2=A0738 Mbits/sec

After:

[ ID] Interval=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Transfer=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Bandwi= dth
[=C2=A0 1] 0.00-60.01 sec=C2=A0 4.87 GBytes=C2=A0 =C2=A0697 Mbits/sec

I was surprised as well. These numbers seem to be within the margin of erro= r.

I tested 'After' again just now:

=C2=A0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
=C2=A0 [ ID] Interval=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Transfer=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Bitrate=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Retr
=C2=A0 [=C2=A0 5]=C2=A0 =C2=A00.00-60.06=C2=A0 sec=C2=A0 5.15 GBytes=C2=A0 = =C2=A0737 Mbits/sec=C2=A0 963=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0sender
=C2=A0 [=C2=A0 5]=C2=A0 =C2=A00.00-60.06=C2=A0 sec=C2=A0 5.15 GBytes=C2=A0 = =C2=A0737 Mbits/sec=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 receiver

=C2=A0 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.

--



--
Best Regards,
Cheng Cui
--000000000000d124940625163050--