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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox