mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bruce Allen <ballen@gravity.phys.uwm.edu>
To: SANGTAE HA <sangtae.ha@gmail.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: e1000 full-duplex TCP performance well below wire speed
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:52:13 -0600 (CST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0801310240210.3240@trinity.phys.uwm.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <649aecc70801301617m6331bcb8i8ce60366e182c739@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Sangtae,

Thanks for joining this discussion -- it's good to a CUBIC author and 
expert here!

>> In our application (cluster computing) we use a very tightly coupled 
>> high-speed low-latency network.  There is no 'wide area traffic'.  So 
>> it's hard for me to understand why any networking components or 
>> software layers should take more than milliseconds to ramp up or back 
>> off in speed. Perhaps we should be asking for a TCP congestion 
>> avoidance algorithm which is designed for a data center environment 
>> where there are very few hops and typical packet delivery times are 
>> tens or hundreds of microseconds. It's very different than delivering 
>> data thousands of km across a WAN.

> If your network latency is low, regardless of type of protocols should 
> give you more than 900Mbps.

Yes, this is also what I had thought.

In the graph that we posted, the two machines are connected by an ethernet 
crossover cable.  The total RTT of the two machines is probably AT MOST a 
couple of hundred microseconds.  Typically it takes 20 or 30 microseconds 
to get the first packet out the NIC.  Travel across the wire is a few 
nanoseconds.  Then getting the packet into the receiving NIC might be 
another 20 or 30 microseconds.  The ACK should fly back in about the same 
time.

> I can guess the RTT of two machines is less than 4ms in your case and I 
> remember the throughputs of all high-speed protocols (including 
> tcp-reno) were more than 900Mbps with 4ms RTT. So, my question which 
> kernel version did you use with your broadcomm NIC and got more than 
> 900Mbps?

We are going to double-check this (we did the broadcom testing about two 
months ago). Carsten is going to re-run the broadcomm experiments later 
today and will then post the results.

You can see results from some testing on crossover-cable wired systems 
with broadcomm NICs, that I did about 2 years ago, here:
http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/beowulf/nemo/design/SMC_8508T_Performance.html
You'll notice that total TCP throughput on the crossover cable was about 
220 MB/sec.  With TCP overhead this is very close to 2Gb/s.

> I have two machines connected by a gig switch and I can see what happens 
> in my environment. Could you post what parameters did you use for 
> netperf testing?

Carsten will post these in the next few hours.  If you want to simplify 
further, you can even take away the gig switch and just use a crossover 
cable.

> and also if you set any parameters for your testing, please post them
> here so that I can see that happens to me as well.

Carsten will post all the sysctl and ethtool parameters shortly.

Thanks again for chiming in. I am sure that with help from you, Jesse, and 
Rick, we can figure out what is going on here, and get it fixed.

Cheers,
 	Bruce

  reply	other threads:[~2008-01-31  8:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-01-30  9:51 Bruce Allen
2008-01-30 13:18 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-30 13:38   ` Bruce Allen
2008-01-30 14:08     ` David Miller
2008-01-30 13:53 ` David Miller
2008-01-30 14:01   ` Bruce Allen
2008-01-30 16:21     ` Stephen Hemminger
2008-01-30 22:25       ` Bruce Allen
2008-01-30 22:33         ` Stephen Hemminger
2008-01-30 23:23           ` Bruce Allen
2008-01-31  0:17         ` SANGTAE HA
2008-01-31  8:52           ` Bruce Allen [this message]
2008-01-31 11:45           ` Bill Fink
2008-01-31 14:50             ` David Acker
2008-01-31 15:57               ` Bruce Allen
2008-01-31 15:54             ` Bruce Allen
2008-01-31 17:36               ` Bill Fink
2008-01-31 19:37                 ` Bruce Allen
2008-01-31 18:26             ` Brandeburg, Jesse

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=Pine.LNX.4.63.0801310240210.3240@trinity.phys.uwm.edu \
    --to=ballen@gravity.phys.uwm.edu \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sangtae.ha@gmail.com \
    --cc=shemminger@linux-foundation.org \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®