From: P@draigBrady.com
To: mellia@prezzemolo.polito.it
Cc: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Jorge Manuel Finochietto <jorge.finochietto@polito.it>,
Giulio Galante <galante@polito.it>,
netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:05:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41A73826.3000109@draigBrady.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1101467291.24742.70.camel@mellia.lipar.polito.it>
I'm forwarding this to netdev, as these are very interesting
results (even if I don't beleive them).
If you point us at the code/versions we will be better able to answer.
Marco Mellia wrote:
> We are trying to stress the e1000 hardware/driver under linux and Click
> to see what is the maximum number of packets per second that can be
> received/transmitted by a single NIC.
>
> We found something which is counterintuitive:
>
> - in reception, we can receive ALL the traffic, regardeless of the
> packet size (or if you prefer, we can receive ALL the minimum sized
> packet at gigabit speed)
I questioned whether you actually did receive at that rate to
which you responded:
> - using Click, we can receive 100% of (small) packets at gigabit
> speed with TWO cards (2gigabit/s ~ 2.8Mpps)
> - using linux and standard e1000 driver, we can receive up to about
> 80% of traffic from a single nic (~1.1Mpps)
> - using linux and a modified (simplified) version of the driver, we
> can receive 100% on a single nic, but not 100% using two nics (up
> to ~1.5Mpps).
>
> Reception means: receiving the packet up to the rx ring at the
> kernel level, and then IMMEDIATELY drop it (no packet processing,
> no forwarding, nothing more...)
>
> Using NAPI or IRQ has littel impact (as we are not processing the
> packets, the livelock due to the hardIRQ preemption versus the
> softIRQ managers is not entered...)
>
> But the limit in TRANSMISSION seems to be 700Kpps. Regardless of
> - the traffic generator,
> - the driver version,
> - the O.S. (linux/click),
> - the hardware (broadcom card have the same limit).
>
> - in transmission we CAN ONLY trasmit about 700.000 pkt/s when the
> minimum sized packets are considered (64bytes long ethernet minumum
> frame size). That is about HALF the maximum number of pkt/s considering
> a gigabit link.
>
> What is weird, is that if we artificially "preload" the NIC tx-fifo with
> packets, and then instruct it to start sending them, those are actually
> transmitted AT WIRE SPEED!!
>
> These results have been obtained considering different software
> generators (namely, UDPGEN, PACKETGEN, Application level generators)
> under LINUX (2.4.x, 2.6.x), and under CLICK (using a modified version of
> UDPGEN).
>
> The hardware setup considers
> - a 2.8GHz Xeon hardware
> - PCI-X bus (133MHz/64bit)
> - 1G of Ram
> - Intel PRO 1000 MT single, double, and quad cards, integrated or on a
> PCI slot.
>
> Different driver versions have been used, and while there are (small)
> differencies when receiving packets, ALL of them present the same
> trasmission limits.
>
> Moreover, the same happen considering other vendors cards (broadcom
> based chipset).
>
> Is there any limit on the PCI-X (or PCI) that can be the bottleneck?
> Or Limit on the number of packets per second that can be stored in the
> NIC tx-fifo?
> May the lenght of the tx-fifo impact on this?
>
> Any hints will be really appreciated.
> Thanks in advance
cheers,
Pádraig.
next parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-26 14:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 85+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1101467291.24742.70.camel@mellia.lipar.polito.it>
2004-11-26 14:05 ` P [this message]
2004-11-26 15:31 ` [E1000-devel] Transmission limit Marco Mellia
2004-11-26 19:56 ` jamal
2004-11-29 14:21 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-30 13:46 ` jamal
2004-12-02 17:24 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-26 20:06 ` jamal
2004-11-26 20:56 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-26 21:02 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-27 9:25 ` Harald Welte
[not found] ` <20041127111101.GC23139@xi.wantstofly.org>
2004-11-27 11:31 ` Harald Welte
2004-11-27 20:12 ` Cesar Marcondes
2004-11-29 8:53 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-29 14:50 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-30 8:42 ` Marco Mellia
2004-12-01 12:25 ` jamal
2004-12-02 13:39 ` Marco Mellia
2004-12-03 13:07 ` jamal
2004-11-26 15:40 ` Robert Olsson
2004-11-26 15:59 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-26 16:57 ` P
2004-11-26 20:01 ` jamal
2004-11-29 10:19 ` P
2004-11-29 13:09 ` Robert Olsson
2004-11-29 20:16 ` David S. Miller
2004-12-01 16:47 ` Robert Olsson
2004-11-30 13:31 ` jamal
2004-11-30 13:46 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-30 14:25 ` jamal
2004-12-01 0:11 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-01 1:09 ` Scott Feldman
2004-12-01 15:34 ` Robert Olsson
2004-12-01 16:49 ` Scott Feldman
2004-12-01 17:37 ` Robert Olsson
2004-12-02 17:54 ` Robert Olsson
2004-12-02 18:23 ` Robert Olsson
2004-12-02 23:25 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-03 5:23 ` Scott Feldman
2004-12-10 16:24 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-01 18:29 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-01 21:35 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-02 6:13 ` Scott Feldman
2004-12-03 13:24 ` jamal
2004-12-05 14:50 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit) Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 15:03 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 15:15 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 15:19 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 15:30 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 17:00 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 17:11 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 17:38 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 18:14 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 15:42 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 16:48 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 17:01 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 17:58 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 17:44 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 17:51 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 17:54 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-06 11:32 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: " jamal
2004-12-06 12:11 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-06 12:20 ` jamal
2004-12-06 12:23 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-06 12:30 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-06 13:11 ` jamal
[not found] ` <20041206132907.GA13411@xi.wantstofly.org>
[not found] ` <16820.37049.396306.295878@robur.slu.se>
2004-12-06 17:32 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: Re: [E1000-devel] " P
2004-12-08 23:36 ` Ray Lehtiniemi
[not found] ` <41B825A5.2000009@draigBrady.com>
[not found] ` <20041209161825.GA32454@mail.com>
2004-12-09 17:12 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 P
[not found] ` <20041209164820.GB32454@mail.com>
2004-12-09 17:19 ` P
2004-12-09 23:25 ` Ray Lehtiniemi
2004-12-05 21:12 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit) Scott Feldman
2004-12-05 21:25 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-06 1:23 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: " Scott Feldman
2004-12-02 17:31 ` [E1000-devel] Transmission limit Marco Mellia
2004-12-03 20:57 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-04 10:36 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-01 12:08 ` jamal
2004-12-01 15:24 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-26 17:58 ` Robert Olsson
2004-11-27 20:00 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-29 12:44 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-29 15:19 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-29 17:32 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-29 19:08 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-29 19:09 ` Lennert Buytenhek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=41A73826.3000109@draigBrady.com \
--to=p@draigbrady.com \
--cc=e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=galante@polito.it \
--cc=jorge.finochietto@polito.it \
--cc=mellia@prezzemolo.polito.it \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.