From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Denys Fedoryshchenko" Subject: Re: packetloss, on e1000e worse than r8169? Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:41:27 +0300 Message-ID: <20080616214127.M90273@visp.net.lb> References: <20080616193501.M64730@visp.net.lb> <4856C3A7.9070703@cosmosbay.com> <20080616202210.M84100@visp.net.lb> <4856CEDC.6010706@intel.com> <20080616204411.M52834@visp.net.lb> <4856D1D6.7040207@intel.com> <20080616211213.M76390@visp.net.lb> <4856DB1D.80503@cosmosbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from usermail.globalproof.net ([194.146.153.18]:49536 "EHLO usermail.globalproof.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754513AbYFPVlt (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:41:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4856DB1D.80503@cosmosbay.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:29:01 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote > >> Are you sure nf_conntrack or ip route cache is not killing you ? > >> > >> Filling 512 or 1024 RX ring on Gigabit link can be very fast, especially > >> if ip route cache is full. > >> > >> rtstat -c10 -i1 > > > > conntrack disabled, it is just enabled for second on load and then unloaded. > > ok :) > > > > > MegaRouter-KARAM ~ # rtstat -c10 -i1 > > rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache|rt_cache| > > entries| in_hit|in_slow_|in_slow_|in_no_ro| in_brd|in_marti|in_marti| > > out_hit|out_slow|out_slow|gc_total|gc_ignor|gc_goal_|gc_dst_o|in_hlist|out_hlis| > > | | tot| mc| ute| | an_dst| an_src| > > | _tot| _mc| | ed| miss| verflow| _search|t_search| > > 63448|229209146|22225578| 13754| 12| 2822| 0| 104| > > 54647| 27606| 570|21782075|21776859| 74| 0|215222374| 61294| > > 66085| 141462| 5268| 8| 0| 4| 0| 0| > > 4| 2| 0| 5274| 5274| 0| 0| 254424| 10| > > 59947| 132660| 20570| 4| 0| 4| 0| 0| > > 8| 14| 0| 20584| 20584| 0| 0| 185738| 24| > > 56995| 132416| 16918| 12| 0| 2| 0| 0| > > 6| 4| 0| 16932| 16932| 0| 0| 68378| 8| > > 56422| 137058| 12336| 8| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 8| 2| 0| 12344| 12344| 0| 0| 84022| 4| > > 56819| 140526| 9896| 10| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 6| 0| 0| 9898| 9896| 0| 0| 99138| 4| > > 57580| 136936| 8370| 10| 0| 2| 0| 0| > > 8| 6| 2| 8378| 8378| 0| 0| 110834| 22| > > 51583| 120138| 26828| 20| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 4| 8| 0| 26848| 26848| 0| 0| 99292| 24| > > 49354| 128076| 21606| 14| 0| 2| 0| 0| > > 0| 10| 0| 21626| 21626| 0| 0| 60546| 12| > > > > > > > > Hum... typical IP route cache congestion ? > > echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/gc_interval > echo 2 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/gc_elasticity Doesn't help, nothing changed. > > You might want to boot with rhash_entries=131071 to play with IP > route cache size, but I am not sure your workload can fit. I will try it, but thats kind of difficult, i cannot reboot anymore near 30 minutes. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Denys Fedoryshchenko Technical Manager Virtual ISP S.A.L.