On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
> On 6/16/16, 3:16 PM, "dev on behalf of Wiles, Keith" on behalf of keith.wiles at intel.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>On 6/16/16, 3:00 PM, "Take Ceara" wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Wiles, Keith
>>>wrote:
On 6/16/16, 1:20 PM, "
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
> On 6/16/16, 1:20 PM, "Take Ceara" wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Wiles, Keith
>>wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/16/16, 11:56 AM, "dev on behalf of Wiles, Keith" >> dpdk.org on behalf of keith.wiles at intel.com> wrote:
>>>
On 6/16
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
> On 6/16/16, 11:56 AM, "dev on behalf of Wiles, Keith" dpdk.org on behalf of keith.wiles at intel.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>On 6/16/16, 11:20 AM, "Take Ceara" wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Wiles, Keith
>>>wrote:
>>>
Rig
On 6/16/16, 3:16 PM, "dev on behalf of Wiles, Keith" wrote:
>
>On 6/16/16, 3:00 PM, "Take Ceara" wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Wiles, Keith
>>wrote:
>>> On 6/16/16, 1:20 PM, "Take Ceara" wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Wiles, Keith
wrote:
>
> On 6/
On 6/16/16, 3:00 PM, "Take Ceara" wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>> On 6/16/16, 1:20 PM, "Take Ceara" wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Wiles, Keith
>>>wrote:
On 6/16/16, 11:56 AM, "dev on behalf of Wiles, Keith" >>> dpdk.org on behalf of k
On 6/16/16, 1:20 PM, "Take Ceara" wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>
>> On 6/16/16, 11:56 AM, "dev on behalf of Wiles, Keith" > dpdk.org on behalf of keith.wiles at intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On 6/16/16, 11:20 AM, "Take Ceara" wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
> Right now I do not know what the issue is with the system. Could be too many
> Rx/Tx ring pairs per port and limiting the memory in the NICs, which is why
> you get better performance when you have 8 core per port. I am not really
> seei
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
> From the output below it appears the x710 devices 01:00.[0-3] are on socket 0
> And the x710 devices 02:00.[0-3] sit on socket 1.
>
I assume there's a mistake here. The x710 devices on socket 0 are:
$ lspci | grep -ie "01:.*x710"
01:00.0 Et
On 6/16/16, 11:56 AM, "dev on behalf of Wiles, Keith" wrote:
>
>On 6/16/16, 11:20 AM, "Take Ceara" wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Wiles, Keith
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Right now I do not know what the issue is with the system. Could be too
>>> many Rx/Tx ring pairs per port and limit
On 6/16/16, 11:20 AM, "Take Ceara" wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
>>
>> Right now I do not know what the issue is with the system. Could be too many
>> Rx/Tx ring pairs per port and limiting the memory in the NICs, which is why
>> you get better performance whe
Hi Keith,
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>> Normally the limitation is in the hardware, basically how the PCI bus is
>>> connected to the CPUs (or sockets). How the PCI buses are connected to the
>>> system depends on the Mother board design. I normally see the buses
>>>
On 6/16/16, 10:16 AM, "Take Ceara" wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>
>> From the output below it appears the x710 devices 01:00.[0-3] are on socket 0
>> And the x710 devices 02:00.[0-3] sit on socket 1.
>>
>
>I assume there's a mistake here. The x710 devices on sock
On 6/16/16, 9:36 AM, "Take Ceara" wrote:
>Hi Keith,
>
>On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
Normally the limitation is in the hardware, basically how the PCI bus is
connected to the CPUs (or sockets). How the PCI buses are connected to the
system depends on the M
On 6/14/16, 2:46 AM, "Take Ceara" wrote:
>Hi Keith,
>
>On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>
>> On 6/13/16, 9:07 AM, "dev on behalf of Take Ceara" > on behalf of dumitru.ceara at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I'm reposting here as I didn't get any answers on the dpdk-user
Hi Bruce,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Bruce Richardson
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:07:37PM +0200, Take Ceara wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm reposting here as I didn't get any answers on the dpdk-users mailing
>> list.
>>
>> We're working on a stateful traffic generator (www.warp17.net) usi
Hi Keith,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
> On 6/13/16, 9:07 AM, "dev on behalf of Take Ceara" on behalf of dumitru.ceara at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'm reposting here as I didn't get any answers on the dpdk-users mailing list.
>>
>>We're working on a stateful traff
On 6/13/16, 9:07 AM, "dev on behalf of Take Ceara" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'm reposting here as I didn't get any answers on the dpdk-users mailing list.
>
>We're working on a stateful traffic generator (www.warp17.net) using
>DPDK and we would like to control two XL710 NICs (one on each socket)
>to maxi
Hi,
I'm reposting here as I didn't get any answers on the dpdk-users mailing list.
We're working on a stateful traffic generator (www.warp17.net) using
DPDK and we would like to control two XL710 NICs (one on each socket)
to maximize CPU usage. It looks that we run into the following
limitation:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:07:37PM +0200, Take Ceara wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm reposting here as I didn't get any answers on the dpdk-users mailing list.
>
> We're working on a stateful traffic generator (www.warp17.net) using
> DPDK and we would like to control two XL710 NICs (one on each socket)
> t
19 matches
Mail list logo
