From: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@Voltaire.com>
To: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Vytautas Valancius <vytautas.valancius@gmail.com>,
Sapan Bhatia <sapanb@cs.princeton.edu>,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: bridge vs macvlan performance
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:02:22 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A792E7E.10007@Voltaire.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A791DA5.3090202@candelatech.com>
Ben Greear wrote:
> Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> Using the same pktgen script (i.e with clone=0) I see that a
>> veth-->bridge-->veth configuration gives about 400K PPS forwarding
>> performance where macvlan-->veth-->macvlan gives 680K PPS (again, I
>> made sure that the bridge has applied learning before I start the test).
(its interesting how many times the same mistake can be done...) setting net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-iptables=0 made the veth-->bridge-->veth test to deliver 600K PPS thus reducing the gain achieved by the macvlan-->veth-->macvlan test from 70% to 20% which is way less but still notable.
> A VETH has to send to it's peer, so your descriptions are a bit vague.
> What are you really configuring? Maybe show us your script or commands
> that set up each of these tests?
Yes, VETH has to send to its peer, so the veth/bridge/veth test has actually two more hops vs the macvlan/veth/macvlan test, maybe this can explain the difference, as for you question see below my configuration.
I am looking for the simplest setup to test the Linux bridge forwarding performance, I could do a tap-->bridge-->tap test with two processes sitting in user space, but I tend to think that user/kernel switches and the tap code may become the bottleneck in that case, where the kernel pktgen is much more efficient.
Or.
------> for veth/bridge/veth test I do the below such that my config is
------> pktgen --> veth1 --> veth0 --> br0 --> veth2 --> veth3
BRIDGE=br0
brctl addbr $BRIDGE
ifconfig $BRIDGE up
# set the bridge such that it does NOT call iptables
sysctl -w net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-iptables=0
DEV_A=veth0
DEV_B=veth1
MAC_A=72:EC:8E:4F:89:00
MAC_B=72:EC:8E:4F:89:01
DEV_B_IP=20.20.49.11
MASK=16
# create the 1st veth device pair
ip link add name $DEV_A address $MAC_A type veth peer name $DEV_B address $MAC_B
# bring up and connect one veth device to the bridge
ifconfig $DEV_A up
brctl addif $BRIDGE $DEV_A
# configure the other veth device as NIC
ifconfig $DEV_B $DEV_B_IP/$MASK up
DEV_C=veth2
DEV_D=veth3
MAC_C=72:EC:8E:4F:89:02
MAC_D=72:EC:8E:4F:89:03
DEV_D_IP=20.20.49.13
# create the 2nd veth device pair
ip link add name $DEV_C address $MAC_C type veth peer name $DEV_D address $MAC_D
# bring up and connect the other veth device to the bridge
ifconfig $DEV_C up
brctl addif $BRIDGE $DEV_C
# configure the other veth device as NIC
ifconfig $DEV_D $DEV_D_IP/$MASK up
# make local Linux bridge learning come into play, populate the bridge FDB
REMOTE=1.1.1.1
ping -I $DEV_B $REMOTE -i 0.05 -c 10 -q
ping -I $DEV_D $REMOTE -i 0.05 -c 10 -q
# examine the bridge FDB to make sure learning happened
brctl showmacs $BRIDGE
------> for macvlan/veth/macvlan test I do the below such that my config is
------> pktgen --> mv0 --> veth1 --> veth0 --> mv1
DEV_A=veth0
DEV_B=veth1
MAC_A=72:EC:8E:4F:89:00
MAC_B=72:EC:8E:4F:89:01
# create the 1st veth device pair
ip link add name $DEV_A address $MAC_A type veth peer name $DEV_B address $MAC_B
# bring up and connect one veth device to the bridge
ifconfig $DEV_A up
ifconfig $DEV_B up
UPLINK_DEV_A=veth1
UPLINK_DEV_B=veth0
DEV_A=mv1
DEV_B=mv0
MAC_A=00:19:d1:29:d2:01
MAC_B=00:19:d1:29:d2:00
ip link add link $UPLINK_DEV_A address $MAC_A $DEV_A type macvlan
ip link add link $UPLINK_DEV_B address $MAC_B $DEV_B type macvlan
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-05 7:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-04 14:30 some veth related issues Or Gerlitz
2009-08-04 15:47 ` Ben Greear
2009-08-05 4:40 ` Or Gerlitz
2009-08-05 4:48 ` Ben Greear
2009-08-05 5:41 ` bridge vs macvlan performance (was: some veth related issues) Or Gerlitz
2009-08-05 5:50 ` bridge vs macvlan performance Ben Greear
2009-08-05 7:02 ` Or Gerlitz [this message]
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=4A792E7E.10007@Voltaire.com \
--to=ogerlitz@voltaire.com \
--cc=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sapanb@cs.princeton.edu \
--cc=shemminger@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vytautas.valancius@gmail.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).