From nobody Wed Oct 23 12:28:01 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 4XYSyK45Zxz5bBZB for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2024 12:28:41 +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 4XYSyK28rxz4bN6 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2024 12:28:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ccfreebsd@gmail.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: by mail-lf1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-539ea686fd7so861016e87.2 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2024 05:28:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1729686519; x=1730291319; 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=ztTSpBy4ytPUhD+C4a/Y311gG/yPdo/oR0A2G9l4MNk=; b=v5o+4U/K0exyWdsozVgasl8AM90UFVoKiJAc1l03/RkbZHANVfh8QJljEWPFcLKHGF sfpvO93HHpK5NUzMozJBW3hrrlFMhiakasC52ER13lpre2IjibxxuDTOcZUsXi2oUCOZ GgiZ5SE4jXftSPiWS4WjhTTiIo107qfgPhxbkipF4LXe9bOE6IJFqm29aCVo2Gs3HZ29 OZjlTjlfAahuC8zix8SXr4OhiROYZ5oO2R7f+ZQ6GObzHjyC7PchDwpfp7U5/y7lgI44 8q4YjXP3fHPXZwBDOejYQJSfJ2Mc1Muffa3CgyjfZib46xhT/QMELp/yboEAZZM6JnIp VNhQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzDG7AIBYgmW0xQHxavzGmGevm6gKmOyNUcsaxN7X0q0xiqTFZM 4zK+Y1vFIUax1ecY8cKlDmWwI7lR3iGi4CsFlRdjlAVZUVY6K0Lm9hWEZADp X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFZjDl/pGEaIFQx73HRPrXO+Dl/WOwKQiv2UVxrPJANonQdf95pR8ONUDonEgNy61MKmT2WCQ== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b8cd:0:b0:2fb:3e40:a8fc with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2fc9d33e873mr3400371fa.5.1729686518467; Wed, 23 Oct 2024 05:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f52.google.com (mail-lf1-f52.google.com. [209.85.167.52]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 2adb3069b0e04-53a22420110sm1050657e87.143.2024.10.23.05.28.38 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Oct 2024 05:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-539e576d665so889650e87.1 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2024 05:28:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3b8b:b0:539:a353:2762 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-53b1a231f4emr350628e87.0.1729686518064; Wed, 23 Oct 2024 05:28:38 -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: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 08:28:01 -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="0000000000007b749c06252406ca" 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: 4XYSyK28rxz4bN6 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- --0000000000007b749c06252406ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The latency does not sound a problem to me. What is the performance of TCP congestion control algorithm `newreno`? In case you need to load `newreno` first. cc@n1:~ % sudo kldload newreno cc@n1:~ % sudo sysctl net.inet.tcp.cc.algorithm=3Dnewreno net.inet.tcp.cc.algorithm: cubic -> newreno cc@n1:~ % And let me know the result of `newreno` vs. `cubic`, for example: iperf3 -B ${src} --cport ${tcp_port} -c ${dst} -l 1M -t 20 -i 2 -VC newreno cc On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 4:13=E2=80=AFPM void wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 03:57:42PM -0400, Cheng Cui wrote: > >What is the output from `ping` (latency) between these VMs? > > That test wasn't between VMs. It was from the vm with the patches to a > workstation > on the same switch. > > ping from the vm to the workstation: > > --- 192.168.1.232 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss > round-trip min/avg/max/stddev =3D 0.643/0.796/0.870/0.070 ms > > ping from the vm with patches to an alpine linux vm on the same host: > > --- 192.168.1.65 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss > round-trip min/avg/max/stddev =3D 0.734/0.859/0.963/0.073 ms > > -- > > --=20 Best Regards, Cheng Cui --0000000000007b749c06252406ca Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The latency does not sound a problem to me. What is t= he performance of
TCP congestion control algorithm `newreno`?

In case you need to load `newreno` first.=C2=A0
=

cc@n1:~ % sudo kldload newreno

cc@n1:~ % sudo sysctl net.inet.tcp.cc.algorithm=3Dnewreno

net.inet.tcp.cc.algorithm: cubic -> newreno

cc@n1:~ %


And let me know the res= ult of `newreno` vs. `cubic`, for example:
iperf3 -B ${src} --cpo= rt ${tcp_port} -c ${dst} -l 1M -t 20 -i 2 -VC newreno

cc

On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 4:13=E2=80=AFPM void <void@f-m.fm> wrote:
On Tue,= Oct 22, 2024 at 03:57:42PM -0400, Cheng Cui wrote:
>What is the output from `ping` (latency) between these VMs?

That test wasn't between VMs. It was from the vm with the patches to a = workstation
on the same switch.

ping from the vm to the workstation:

--- 192.168.1.232 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev =3D 0.643/0.796/0.870/0.070 ms

ping from the vm with patches to an alpine linux vm on the same host:

--- 192.168.1.65 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev =3D 0.734/0.859/0.963/0.073 ms

--



--
Best Regards,
Cheng Cui
--0000000000007b749c06252406ca--