From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: ralph+d@istop.com
Cc: "netdev@oss.sgi.com" <netdev@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: Linux router performance (3c59x) (fwd)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:30:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3E76BD17.7060208@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.51.0303172356440.8302@ns.istop.com>
Ralph Doncaster wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Ben Greear wrote:
>
>
>>Ralph Doncaster wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>Currently the box in question is running a 67% system load with ~40kpps.
>>>Here's the switch port stats that the 2 3c905cx cards are plugged into:
>>>
>>> 5 minute input rate 36143000 bits/sec, 8914 packets/sec
>>> 5 minute output rate 54338000 bits/sec, 10722 packets/sec
>>>-
>>> 5 minute input rate 50585000 bits/sec, 12445 packets/sec
>>> 5 minute output rate 34326000 bits/sec, 9596 packets/sec
>>
>>When using larger packets, NAPI doesn't have much effect.
>
>
> So I should just give up on Linux and go with FreeBSD?
> http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/polling/
It would be interesting to see a performance comparison.
>>Have you tried routing with simple routing tables to see if that
>>speeds anything up?
>
> No, but I did read through a bunch of the route-cache code and even with
> the dynamic hashtable size introduced in recent 2.4 revs, it looks very
> ineficient for core routing. I'd expect a speedup with a small routing
> table, but then it would be useless as a core router in my network.
So, if making the routing table smaller 'fixes' things, then NAPI and your
NIC is not the problem.
>>Could also try an e100 or Tulip NIC. Those usually work pretty
>>good... Or, could use an e1000 GigE NIC...
>
>
> If I can get confirmation that under similar conditions the e1000 performs
> significantly better, then I'll go that route.
In my testing, I could get about 140kpps (64-byte packets) tx or
rx on a single port. Bi-directional I got about 90kpps. This
was a 1.8Ghz AMD processor with a tulip driver.
When using MTU sized packets, could fill 4 ports with tx+rx traffic
at 90+Mbps.
With e1000 on a 64/66 PCI bus, I could transmit around 860Mbps with 1500
byte packets (tx + rx on the same machine, but different ports of
a dual-port NIC), and could generate maybe 400kpps
with small packets (I don't remember the exact number here...)
This was using a slightly modified (and slower) pktgen module, which is standard in
the latest kernels.
So, sending/receiving packets at extreme rates is possible. Routing with 100k entries
may not work nearly so well.
>>It's also possible that you are just reaching the limit of your
>>system.
>
>
> The NAPI docs imply 144kpps is easily attainable on lesser hardware than
> mine. Also I can't see bandwidth being the issue as I'm moving
> <25Mbytes/sec over the PCI bus. I should be able to do more than double
> that before I have to worry about PCI saturation.
So, test w/smaller routing tables so you can see if it's routing or the NIC
that is slowing you down.
>
> -Ralph
>
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> <Ben_Greear AT excite.com>
President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-03-18 6:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-03-18 3:43 Linux router performance (3c59x) (fwd) Ralph Doncaster
2003-03-18 4:48 ` Ben Greear
2003-03-18 5:09 ` Ralph Doncaster
2003-03-18 6:30 ` Ben Greear [this message]
2003-03-18 9:54 ` Robert Olsson
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=3E76BD17.7060208@candelatech.com \
--to=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=ralph+d@istop.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 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).