From: P@draigBrady.com
To: mellia@prezzemolo.polito.it
Cc: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Jorge Manuel Finochietto <jorge.finochietto@polito.it>,
Giulio Galante <galante@polito.it>,
netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:05:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41A73826.3000109@draigBrady.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1101467291.24742.70.camel@mellia.lipar.polito.it>
I'm forwarding this to netdev, as these are very interesting
results (even if I don't beleive them).
If you point us at the code/versions we will be better able to answer.
Marco Mellia wrote:
> We are trying to stress the e1000 hardware/driver under linux and Click
> to see what is the maximum number of packets per second that can be
> received/transmitted by a single NIC.
>
> We found something which is counterintuitive:
>
> - in reception, we can receive ALL the traffic, regardeless of the
> packet size (or if you prefer, we can receive ALL the minimum sized
> packet at gigabit speed)
I questioned whether you actually did receive at that rate to
which you responded:
> - using Click, we can receive 100% of (small) packets at gigabit
> speed with TWO cards (2gigabit/s ~ 2.8Mpps)
> - using linux and standard e1000 driver, we can receive up to about
> 80% of traffic from a single nic (~1.1Mpps)
> - using linux and a modified (simplified) version of the driver, we
> can receive 100% on a single nic, but not 100% using two nics (up
> to ~1.5Mpps).
>
> Reception means: receiving the packet up to the rx ring at the
> kernel level, and then IMMEDIATELY drop it (no packet processing,
> no forwarding, nothing more...)
>
> Using NAPI or IRQ has littel impact (as we are not processing the
> packets, the livelock due to the hardIRQ preemption versus the
> softIRQ managers is not entered...)
>
> But the limit in TRANSMISSION seems to be 700Kpps. Regardless of
> - the traffic generator,
> - the driver version,
> - the O.S. (linux/click),
> - the hardware (broadcom card have the same limit).
>
> - in transmission we CAN ONLY trasmit about 700.000 pkt/s when the
> minimum sized packets are considered (64bytes long ethernet minumum
> frame size). That is about HALF the maximum number of pkt/s considering
> a gigabit link.
>
> What is weird, is that if we artificially "preload" the NIC tx-fifo with
> packets, and then instruct it to start sending them, those are actually
> transmitted AT WIRE SPEED!!
>
> These results have been obtained considering different software
> generators (namely, UDPGEN, PACKETGEN, Application level generators)
> under LINUX (2.4.x, 2.6.x), and under CLICK (using a modified version of
> UDPGEN).
>
> The hardware setup considers
> - a 2.8GHz Xeon hardware
> - PCI-X bus (133MHz/64bit)
> - 1G of Ram
> - Intel PRO 1000 MT single, double, and quad cards, integrated or on a
> PCI slot.
>
> Different driver versions have been used, and while there are (small)
> differencies when receiving packets, ALL of them present the same
> trasmission limits.
>
> Moreover, the same happen considering other vendors cards (broadcom
> based chipset).
>
> Is there any limit on the PCI-X (or PCI) that can be the bottleneck?
> Or Limit on the number of packets per second that can be stored in the
> NIC tx-fifo?
> May the lenght of the tx-fifo impact on this?
>
> Any hints will be really appreciated.
> Thanks in advance
cheers,
Pádraig.
next parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-26 14:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 85+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1101467291.24742.70.camel@mellia.lipar.polito.it>
2004-11-26 14:05 ` P [this message]
2004-11-26 15:31 ` [E1000-devel] Transmission limit Marco Mellia
2004-11-26 19:56 ` jamal
2004-11-29 14:21 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-30 13:46 ` jamal
2004-12-02 17:24 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-26 20:06 ` jamal
2004-11-26 20:56 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-26 21:02 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-27 9:25 ` Harald Welte
[not found] ` <20041127111101.GC23139@xi.wantstofly.org>
2004-11-27 11:31 ` Harald Welte
2004-11-27 20:12 ` Cesar Marcondes
2004-11-29 8:53 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-29 14:50 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-30 8:42 ` Marco Mellia
2004-12-01 12:25 ` jamal
2004-12-02 13:39 ` Marco Mellia
2004-12-03 13:07 ` jamal
2004-11-26 15:40 ` Robert Olsson
2004-11-26 15:59 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-26 16:57 ` P
2004-11-26 20:01 ` jamal
2004-11-29 10:19 ` P
2004-11-29 13:09 ` Robert Olsson
2004-11-29 20:16 ` David S. Miller
2004-12-01 16:47 ` Robert Olsson
2004-11-30 13:31 ` jamal
2004-11-30 13:46 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-30 14:25 ` jamal
2004-12-01 0:11 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-01 1:09 ` Scott Feldman
2004-12-01 15:34 ` Robert Olsson
2004-12-01 16:49 ` Scott Feldman
2004-12-01 17:37 ` Robert Olsson
2004-12-02 17:54 ` Robert Olsson
2004-12-02 18:23 ` Robert Olsson
2004-12-02 23:25 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-03 5:23 ` Scott Feldman
2004-12-10 16:24 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-01 18:29 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-01 21:35 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-02 6:13 ` Scott Feldman
2004-12-03 13:24 ` jamal
2004-12-05 14:50 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit) Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 15:03 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 15:15 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 15:19 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 15:30 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 17:00 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 17:11 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 17:38 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 18:14 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 15:42 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 16:48 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 17:01 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-05 17:58 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 17:44 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 17:51 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-05 17:54 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-06 11:32 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: " jamal
2004-12-06 12:11 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-06 12:20 ` jamal
2004-12-06 12:23 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-06 12:30 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-12-06 13:11 ` jamal
[not found] ` <20041206132907.GA13411@xi.wantstofly.org>
[not found] ` <16820.37049.396306.295878@robur.slu.se>
2004-12-06 17:32 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: Re: [E1000-devel] " P
2004-12-08 23:36 ` Ray Lehtiniemi
[not found] ` <41B825A5.2000009@draigBrady.com>
[not found] ` <20041209161825.GA32454@mail.com>
2004-12-09 17:12 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 P
[not found] ` <20041209164820.GB32454@mail.com>
2004-12-09 17:19 ` P
2004-12-09 23:25 ` Ray Lehtiniemi
2004-12-05 21:12 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit) Scott Feldman
2004-12-05 21:25 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-06 1:23 ` 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: " Scott Feldman
2004-12-02 17:31 ` [E1000-devel] Transmission limit Marco Mellia
2004-12-03 20:57 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-04 10:36 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-12-01 12:08 ` jamal
2004-12-01 15:24 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-26 17:58 ` Robert Olsson
2004-11-27 20:00 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-29 12:44 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-29 15:19 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-29 17:32 ` Marco Mellia
2004-11-29 19:08 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2004-11-29 19:09 ` Lennert Buytenhek
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=41A73826.3000109@draigBrady.com \
--to=p@draigbrady.com \
--cc=e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=galante@polito.it \
--cc=jorge.finochietto@polito.it \
--cc=mellia@prezzemolo.polito.it \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.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).