Re: 2.6.12.6 to 2.6.14.3 Major 10-GigE TCP Network Performance Degradation

2006-01-04 Thread Bill Fink
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 22:35:50 -0500 > Bill Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Would the following patch be at all useful for the 2.6.14.x stable > > series, since enabling TSO there causes a 40% or greater TCP performance > > penalty, or is 2.6.15

Re: 2.6.12.6 to 2.6.14.3 Major 10-GigE TCP Network Performance Degradation

2006-01-03 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 22:35:50 -0500 Bill Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:26:31 +0100 > > Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 08:35:32PM -0500, Bill Fink wrote: > > > > On Fri, 16 Dec 2

Re: 2.6.12.6 to 2.6.14.3 Major 10-GigE TCP Network Performance Degradation

2005-12-28 Thread Bill Fink
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:26:31 +0100 > Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 08:35:32PM -0500, Bill Fink wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > > > It appears that it is getting CPU starved for s

Re: 2.6.12.6 to 2.6.14.3 Major 10-GigE TCP Network Performance Degradation

2005-12-15 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:26:31 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 08:35:32PM -0500, Bill Fink wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > It appears that it is getting CPU starved for some reason (note the > > > > 43%/40% transmitter CPU usage ve

Re: 2.6.12.6 to 2.6.14.3 Major 10-GigE TCP Network Performance Degradation

2005-12-15 Thread Bill Fink
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Bill Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:35:32 -0500 > > > chance% nuttcp -w2m 192.168.88.8 > > 6299.0625 MB / 10.01 sec = 5278.6065 Mbps 100 %TX 74 %RX > > chance% nuttcp -r -w2m 192.168.88.8 > > 6221.3125 MB / 10.01 sec =

Re: 2.6.12.6 to 2.6.14.3 Major 10-GigE TCP Network Performance Degradation

2005-12-15 Thread Andi Kleen
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 08:35:32PM -0500, Bill Fink wrote: > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > It appears that it is getting CPU starved for some reason (note the > > > 43%/40% transmitter CPU usage versus the 99%/99% CPU usage for the > > > 2.6.12.6 case). > > > > What happens when

Re: 2.6.12.6 to 2.6.14.3 Major 10-GigE TCP Network Performance Degradation

2005-12-15 Thread David S. Miller
From: Bill Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:35:32 -0500 > chance% nuttcp -w2m 192.168.88.8 > 6299.0625 MB / 10.01 sec = 5278.6065 Mbps 100 %TX 74 %RX > chance% nuttcp -r -w2m 192.168.88.8 > 6221.3125 MB / 10.01 sec = 5213.2026 Mbps 100 %TX 71 %RX > > And a full test I just d

Re: 2.6.12.6 to 2.6.14.3 Major 10-GigE TCP Network Performance Degradation

2005-12-15 Thread Bill Fink
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Andi Kleen wrote: > > It appears that it is getting CPU starved for some reason (note the > > 43%/40% transmitter CPU usage versus the 99%/99% CPU usage for the > > 2.6.12.6 case). > > What happens when you turn off tso in ethtool? Thanks!!! That did the trick. [EMAIL PROT

Re: 2.6.12.6 to 2.6.14.3 Major 10-GigE TCP Network Performance Degradation

2005-12-15 Thread Andi Kleen
> It appears that it is getting CPU starved for some reason (note the > 43%/40% transmitter CPU usage versus the 99%/99% CPU usage for the > 2.6.12.6 case). What happens when you turn off tso in ethtool? -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a me

Re: 2.6.12.6 to 2.6.14.3 Major 10-GigE TCP Network Performance Degradation

2005-12-15 Thread Bill Fink
Oops. I forgot to attach my 2.6.12.6 kernel config. -Bill config-2.6.12.bz2 Description: BZip2 compressed data