Unstable local network throughput
Ben RUBSON
ben.rubson at gmail.com
Wed Aug 17 09:00:28 UTC 2016
> On 15 Aug 2016, at 16:49, Ben RUBSON <ben.rubson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12 Aug 2016, at 00:52, Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Which ones of these hit the line rate comfortably?
>
> So Adrian, I ran tests again using FreeBSD 11-RC1.
> I put iperf throughput in result files (so that we can classify them), as well as top -P ALL and pcm-memory.x.
> iperf results : columns 3&4 are for srv1->srv2, columns 5&6 are for srv2->srv1 (both flows running at the same time).
>
>
>
> Results, expected throughput (best first) :
> 11, 01, 05, 07, 06
>
> Results, bad (best first) :
> 04, 02, 09, 03
>
> Results, worst (best first) :
> 10, 08
>
>
>
> 00) Idle system
> http://pastebin.com/raw/K1iMVHVF
And strangely enough, from one server reboot to another, results are not the same.
They can be excellent, as 01), and they can be dramatically bad, as 01b) :
> 01) No pinning
> http://pastebin.com/raw/7J3HibX0
01b) http://pastebin.com/raw/HbSPjigZ (-36GB/s)
I kept this "bad boot" state and performed the other tests (with lock_profiling stats for 10 seconds) :
> 02) numactl -l fixed-domain-rr -m 0 -c 0
> http://pastebin.com/raw/Yt7yYr0K
02b) http://pastebin.com/raw/n7aZF7ad (+16GB/s)
> 03) numactl -l fixed-domain-rr -m 0 -c 0
> + cpuset -l <0-11> -x <IRQ>
> http://pastebin.com/raw/1FAgDUSU
03b) http://pastebin.com/raw/QHbauimp (+24GB/s)
> 04) numactl -l fixed-domain-rr -m 0 -c 0
> + cpuset -l <12-23> -x <IRQ>
> http://pastebin.com/raw/fTAxrzBb
04b) http://pastebin.com/raw/7gJFZdqB (+10GB/s)
> 05) numactl -l fixed-domain-rr -m 1 -c 1
> http://pastebin.com/raw/kuAHzKu2
05b) http://pastebin.com/raw/TwhHGKNa (-36GB/s)
> 06) numactl -l fixed-domain-rr -m 1 -c 1
> + cpuset -l <0-11> -x <IRQ>
> http://pastebin.com/raw/tgtaZgwb
06b) http://pastebin.com/raw/zSZ7r09Y (-36GB/s)
> 07) numactl -l fixed-domain-rr -m 1 -c 1
> + cpuset -l <12-23> -x <IRQ>
> http://pastebin.com/raw/16ReuGFF
07b) http://pastebin.com/raw/qCsaGBVn (-36GB/s)
These results are very strange, as if NUMA domains were "inverted"...
dmesg : http://pastebin.com/raw/i5USqLix
If I'm lucky enough, after several reboots, I can produce same performance results as in test 01).
dmesg : http://pastebin.com/raw/VvfQv6TM
01c) http://pastebin.com/raw/BVxgSyBN
> 08) No pinning, default kernel (no NUMA option)
> http://pastebin.com/raw/Ah74fKRx
>
> 09) default kernel (no NUMA option)
> + cpuset -l <0-11>
> + cpuset -l <0-11> -x <IRQ>
> http://pastebin.com/raw/YE0PxEu8
>
> 10) default kernel (no NUMA option)
> + cpuset -l <12-23>
> + cpuset -l <12-23> -x <IRQ>
> http://pastebin.com/raw/RPh8aM49
>
>
>
> 11) No pinning, default kernel (no NUMA option), NUMA BIOS disabled
> http://pastebin.com/raw/LyGcLKDd
More information about the freebsd-net
mailing list