From nobody Sat Nov 18 19:37:57 2023 X-Original-To: freebsd-transport@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 4SXkZk6kl8z51WT5 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2023 19:38:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zlei@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (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-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4SXkZk6FzDz4P8R for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2023 19:38:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zlei@FreeBSD.org) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1700336286; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=INEdM5J+ZyvIq9UwzGCgC+tr3nLs/l/h7ESmZNU8EDg=; b=dUsgoX+1DlHyijex58ZiREe+kdeSWpLamPZoDY3h2cMvWv1bRWVHlS3F3juLcK50QKonJD YiZ6SgYO9cb+Y7T4AJIIzcgYZOKtjLobsqhwIMsSf/sd7zjc4jNpNxh9dickNDKY35QeGD eBPBN92O18AdRNaayqBN3wfbM8FTFjPd3I+ZREhJizyb9WlEKTPA5Rmq8I/dEDQ1IyoYZh SnzeSSfVRnLzXBTye+8Cp2MKzkZZruQ7kuxTRfVThSz/iHBiXBzljTZGr5PZAqap1NrV29 mLSObSzmACdySH6H2gJIPjYvRQikIl+hL+AtJNjjOk/oOlRLIF6lNTU21HJArQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1700336286; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=INEdM5J+ZyvIq9UwzGCgC+tr3nLs/l/h7ESmZNU8EDg=; b=KZvCq4mVUIB4au1Ttug0cvZIhAhtH8inskvP/ImBN3rlzkpIuVDhD/VYxUKdlU9AX/8CRQ QZyfH8ujR5a0xjzeXyCO8kNAtD9yY/MKebQLotijvjMnBsgMKbPSWBpN0/x+fZmezyQ6Q8 XD6IwMvDQezpKZWarSCyJLrv72exkXosGudpU7NQQ7oyd1kBi6I1nioyHZ6Tgx6H7Rs4DS COMdoioseyN9YuYu18g1fiBHx/ePZYPSHviq5GpUmdkQQBEMvTHqn8U8S/zDPHkMcZJvBN hVE5Sdr5dcH4xqG9oRYgltBdhfMfskNKaNZxolpA8hOynaMBBkOEeZDvRE0lBA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx1.freebsd.org; none ARC-Seal: i=1; s=dkim; d=freebsd.org; t=1700336286; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=T53tw6eBirh17XrkwDagQC1eCnCdgWi3gE2FRfI63QKtcWAKYSvqKqSdCjGkp2CEMUDIz2 BeaGyjh8UXU6FWackK5Nf2oEMEasBl4Ufmqd8bx8nSn6N/cbGsEvwqJhbhrbVH2obAYrmd u1ruKNK9FdAVKQqHkxKWwtOdXJmiUr4HX8xhxxu2t9MJgtGRAC2RSUMX1dz8c+cTeTqt6f YLVmGHOKY8IBdUsgQWCll+a4noJ4/CdoSButtqxw1q7sPD8WaO0s6J+8Z/9KrpYqnRDO5v GRnX/LEkehnbWeVkCTrToAWmOx33z4p5UwM20/FQYrFDIO2SBXirb0V3HJVrkQ== Received: from smtpclient.apple (ns1.oxydns.net [45.32.91.63]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: zlei/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4SXkZk1Z6Qz10k5 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2023 19:38:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zlei@FreeBSD.org) From: Zhenlei Huang Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: Discussions List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-transport List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-transport@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-transport@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\)) Subject: Low performance of BBR compared to cubic Message-Id: Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 03:37:57 +0800 To: freebsd-transport@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) Hi, While test TCP RACK functions, I tested BBR BTW. This is a quick test with iperf3 on bare metal ( old MBP i5 2 cores 4 = threads ). The kernel current/15 with debug options disabled. Following is the = performance result: freebsd: 37.2 Gbits/sec 1.32 MBytes RACK: 27.9 Gbits/sec 1.34 MBytes BBR: 2.34 Gbits/sec 223 KBytes For freebsd and RACK functions the CC is cubic. The last column is Cwnd. BBR's Cwnd looks quite small. There's also a report on Telegram Taiwan FreeBSD chat group, but without = performance details. I believe there is something wrong with BBR. This is not a reasonable = good performance compared with other tcp congestion control algorithms. Or am I missing something ? Best regards, Zhenlei