From: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
To: linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is SCTP throughput really this low compared to TCP?
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 18:41:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5348376F.4080709@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1383F7BACEF3F141A39A7AC90F80407E31B23A@psmwsonsmbx01.sonusnet.com>
On 04/11/2014 08:40 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 04/11/2014 08:22 PM, Butler, Peter wrote:
>> The difference between 3.14 and 3.4.2 is staggering. An order of magnitude or so. For example,
> > using the precisely same setup as before, whereas I get about 2.1 Gbps throughput with 3.4 2, I
> > can only manage between 70-150 Mbps with 3.14 - a staggering difference.
>>
>> Moreover, the SCTP throughput seems to 'choke' itself with 3.14, such that it is always trying to
> > recover. For example, with 3.4.2 the 2.1 Gbps throughput is quite consistent from one second to
> > the next (as you would expect):
>>
>> [root@Lab200slot2 ~]# iperf3 --sctp -4 -c 192.168.241.3 -V -l 1452 -t 60
>> iperf version 3.0.1 (10 January 2014)
>> Linux Lab200slot2 3.4.2-1.fc16.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Jun 14 20:17:26 UTC 2012 x86_64
>> Time: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 18:19:15 GMT
>> Connecting to host 192.168.241.3, port 5201
>> Cookie: Lab200slot2.1397240355.069035.0d5b0f
>> [ 4] local 192.168.241.2 port 56030 connected to 192.168.241.3 port 5201
>> Starting Test: protocol: SCTP, 1 streams, 1452 byte blocks, omitting 0 seconds, 60 second test
>> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
>> [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 255 MBytes 2.14 Gbits/sec
>> [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 253 MBytes 2.12 Gbits/sec
>> [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 255 MBytes 2.14 Gbits/sec
>> [ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 255 MBytes 2.14 Gbits/sec
>> [ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 255 MBytes 2.14 Gbits/sec
>> [ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 257 MBytes 2.15 Gbits/sec
>> [ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 253 MBytes 2.13 Gbits/sec
>> [ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 254 MBytes 2.13 Gbits/sec
>> [ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 255 MBytes 2.14 Gbits/sec
>> [ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 252 MBytes 2.12 Gbits/sec
>> (etc)
>>
>> but with 3.14 the numbers as all over the place:
>>
>> [root@Lab200slot2 ~]# iperf3 --sctp -4 -c 192.168.241.3 -V -l 1452 -t 60
>> iperf version 3.0.1 (10 January 2014)
>> Linux Lab200slot2 3.14.0 #1 SMP Thu Apr 3 23:18:29 EDT 2014 x86_64
>> Time: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:56:21 GMT
>> Connecting to host 192.168.241.3, port 5201
>> Cookie: Lab200slot2.1397238981.812898.548918
>> [ 4] local 192.168.241.2 port 38616 connected to 192.168.241.3 port 5201
>> Starting Test: protocol: SCTP, 1 streams, 1452 byte blocks, omitting 0 seconds, 60 second test
>> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
>> [ 4] 0.00-1.09 sec 20.8 MBytes 161 Mbits/sec
>> [ 4] 1.09-2.13 sec 10.8 MBytes 86.8 Mbits/sec
>> [ 4] 2.13-3.15 sec 3.57 MBytes 29.5 Mbits/sec
>> [ 4] 3.15-4.16 sec 4.33 MBytes 35.7 Mbits/sec
>> [ 4] 4.16-6.21 sec 10.4 MBytes 42.7 Mbits/sec
>> [ 4] 6.21-6.21 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>> [ 4] 6.21-7.35 sec 34.6 MBytes 253 Mbits/sec
>> [ 4] 7.35-11.45 sec 22.0 MBytes 45.0 Mbits/sec
>> [ 4] 11.45-11.45 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>> [ 4] 11.45-11.45 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>> [ 4] 11.45-11.45 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>> [ 4] 11.45-12.51 sec 16.0 MBytes 126 Mbits/sec
>> [ 4] 12.51-13.59 sec 20.3 MBytes 158 Mbits/sec
>> [ 4] 13.59-14.65 sec 13.4 MBytes 107 Mbits/sec
>> [ 4] 14.65-16.79 sec 33.3 MBytes 130 Mbits/sec
>> [ 4] 16.79-16.79 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec
>> [ 4] 16.79-17.82 sec 5.94 MBytes 48.7 Mbits/sec
>> (etc)
>>
>> Note: the difference appears to be SCTP-specific, as I get exactly the same TCP
> > throughput in both kernels.
>
> Hmm, okay. :/ Could you further bisect on your side to narrow down from which
> kernel onwards this behaviour can be seen?
Is that behaviour consistent between IPv4 and IPv6?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-11 18:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-10 19:12 Is SCTP throughput really this low compared to TCP? Butler, Peter
2014-04-10 20:21 ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-04-10 20:40 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-10 21:00 ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-04-11 7:42 ` Daniel Borkmann
2014-04-11 15:07 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-11 15:21 ` Daniel Borkmann
2014-04-11 15:27 ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-04-11 15:35 ` Daniel Borkmann
2014-04-11 18:19 ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-04-11 18:22 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-11 18:40 ` Daniel Borkmann
2014-04-11 18:41 ` Daniel Borkmann [this message]
2014-04-11 18:58 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-11 19:16 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-11 19:20 ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-04-11 19:24 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-11 20:14 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-11 20:18 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-11 20:51 ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-04-11 20:53 ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-04-11 20:57 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-11 23:58 ` Daniel Borkmann
2014-04-12 7:27 ` Dongsheng Song
2014-04-14 14:52 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-14 15:49 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-14 16:43 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-14 16:45 ` Daniel Borkmann
2014-04-14 16:47 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-14 17:06 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-14 17:10 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-14 18:54 ` Matija Glavinic Pecotic
2014-04-14 19:46 ` Daniel Borkmann
2014-04-17 15:26 ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-04-17 16:15 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-22 21:50 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-23 12:59 ` Vlad Yasevich
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=5348376F.4080709@redhat.com \
--to=dborkman@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
/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.