From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Cc: "Michal Kubeček" <mkubecek@suse.cz>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org,
"John A. Sullivan III" <jsullivan@opensourcedevel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] SFQ planned changes
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:14:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1325636098.30256.12.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw427XZj17CtAavJCiZDgPqYu4S5v_fZzoYuZ+p5KbyWAg@mail.gmail.com>
Le mercredi 04 janvier 2012 à 00:57 +0100, Dave Taht a écrit :
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here is the code I ran on my test server with 200 netperf TCP_STREAM
> > flows with pretty good results (each flow gets 0.5 % of bandwidth)
>
> Can I encourage you to always simultaneously run a fping and/or a
> netperf -t TCP_RR
>
ping is pretty nice ;)
# ping -c 20 192.168.20.112
PING 192.168.20.112 (192.168.20.112) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.251 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.123 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.124 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=0.108 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=5 ttl=64 time=0.131 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=6 ttl=64 time=0.126 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=7 ttl=64 time=0.156 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=8 ttl=64 time=0.123 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=9 ttl=64 time=0.111 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=10 ttl=64 time=0.129 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=11 ttl=64 time=0.112 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=12 ttl=64 time=0.138 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=13 ttl=64 time=0.118 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=14 ttl=64 time=0.119 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=15 ttl=64 time=0.121 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=16 ttl=64 time=0.125 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=17 ttl=64 time=0.128 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=18 ttl=64 time=0.108 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=19 ttl=64 time=0.149 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=20 ttl=64 time=0.126 ms
--- 192.168.20.112 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 18999ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.108/0.131/0.251/0.031 ms
> latency under load test when doing stuff like this?
>
> The amount of backlogged bytes is rather impressive...
200 tcp flooding flows... thats pretty normal.
If I add to this load a TCP_RR one I get :
# netperf -H 192.168.20.110 -v 0 -l 10 -t TCP_RR
TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
192.168.20.110 (192.168.20.110) port 0 AF_INET : demo
7606.18
If I stop the flood and start the TCP_RR alone :
# netperf -H 192.168.20.110 -v 0 -l 10 -t TCP_RR
TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
192.168.20.110 (192.168.20.110) port 0 AF_INET : demo
12031.39
And a ping on idle link :
# ping -c 20 192.168.20.112
PING 192.168.20.112 (192.168.20.112) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.119 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.090 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.085 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=0.087 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=5 ttl=64 time=0.084 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=6 ttl=64 time=0.084 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=7 ttl=64 time=0.088 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=8 ttl=64 time=0.085 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=9 ttl=64 time=0.083 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=10 ttl=64 time=0.082 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=11 ttl=64 time=0.082 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=12 ttl=64 time=0.085 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=13 ttl=64 time=0.086 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=14 ttl=64 time=0.084 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=15 ttl=64 time=0.089 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=16 ttl=64 time=0.081 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=17 ttl=64 time=0.084 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=18 ttl=64 time=0.086 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=19 ttl=64 time=0.084 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.112: icmp_req=20 ttl=64 time=0.084 ms
--- 192.168.20.112 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19000ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.081/0.086/0.119/0.012 ms
I can do a test on full Gigabit speed (removing the HTB) and 1000 flows
and post results
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-04 0:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-01 2:30 tc filter mask for ACK packets off? John A. Sullivan III
2012-01-03 7:31 ` Michal Kubeček
2012-01-03 9:36 ` Dave Taht
2012-01-03 10:40 ` [RFC] SFQ planned changes Eric Dumazet
2012-01-03 12:07 ` Dave Taht
2012-01-03 12:50 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-03 16:08 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-03 23:57 ` Dave Taht
2012-01-04 0:14 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2012-01-04 7:56 ` Dave Taht
2012-01-04 8:17 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-03 12:18 ` tc filter mask for ACK packets off? John A. Sullivan III
2012-01-03 12:32 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-03 12:45 ` John A. Sullivan III
2012-01-03 13:00 ` Dave Taht
2012-01-03 17:57 ` John A. Sullivan III
2012-01-04 0:01 ` Michal Soltys
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=1325636098.30256.12.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=dave.taht@gmail.com \
--cc=jsullivan@opensourcedevel.com \
--cc=mkubecek@suse.cz \
--cc=netdev@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).