On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 07:54:38AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 07:50:32AM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote: > > Hi Willy, > > > > Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > >I started from the latest backport you sent in september (0.42) and > > >incrementally applied 2.6 updates. I stopped at 0.50 which provides > > >VLAN support, because after this one, there are some 2.4-incompatible > > >changes (64bit consistent memory allocation for rings, and MSI/MSIX > > >support). > > > > > > > > > > > I agree, 2.4 needs a backport. Either a full backport as you did, or a > > minimal one-liner fix. > > Right now, the driver is not usable due to an incorrect initialization. > > Or to be more accurate: > > # modprobe > > # ifup > > works. > > But > > # modprobe > > # ifup > > # ifdown > > # ifup > > causes a misconfiguration, and the nic hangs hard after a few MB. And > > recent distros do the equivalent of ifup/ifdown/ifup somewhere in the > > initialization. > > That's what I read in one of the changelogs, but I'm not sure at all that > it's what happened, because I had the problem after an ifup only. What I > was doing with this box was pure performance tests which drew me to compare > the broadcom and nforce performance. My tests measured 3 creteria : > > - number of HTTP/1.0 hits/s > - maximum data rate > - maximum packets/s > > on tg3, I got around 45 khits/s, 949 Mbps (TCP, =1.0 Gbps on wire) and > 1.05 Mpps receive (I want to build a high speed load-balancer and a sniffer). > This was stable. > > On the nforce, I tried with the hits/s first because it's a good indication > of hardware-based and driver-based optimizations. It reached 18 khits/s with > a lot of difficulty and the machine was stuck at 100% of one CPU. But it ran > for a few minutes like this. Then I tried data rate (which is the same test > with 1MB objects), and it failed after about 2 seconds and few megabytes (or > hundreds of megabytes) transferred. > > I had to reboot to get it to work again. And I'm fairly sure that I did not > do down/up this time as well, but the test came to the same end. > > That's why I'm not sure at all that the one-liner will be enough. > > Moreover, after the update, I reached the same performance as with the > broadcom, with a slight improvement on packet reception (1.09 Mpps), and > low CPU usage (15%). So basically, the upgrade rendered the driver from > barely usable for SSH to very performant. > > > Marcelo: Do you need a one-liner, or could you apply a large backport > > patch? > > I would really vote for the full backport, and I can break it into pieces > if needed (I have them at hand, just have to re-inject the changelogs). > However, I have separate changes from 0.42 to 0.50, because I started > with your 0.30-0.42 backport patch. > > I have this machine till the end of the week, so I can perform other tests > if you're interested in trying specific things.
Since v2.4.33 should be out RSN, my opinion is that applying the one-liner to fix the bringup problem for now is more prudent.. Full patch could go into v2.4.34... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
