Re: [E1000-devel] tcp_window and ixgbe problem vs e1000e

2013-08-12 Thread Alexander Duyck
On 08/12/2013 03:28 PM, Alexey Stoyanov wrote: > I done reload of ixgbe with MQ=0,0 and RSS=1,1 > There are no luck with speed. > > [ 3] local xxx.xxx.185.135 port 5001 connected with yy.yy.74.11 port 5001 > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth > [ 3] 0.0-20.0 sec 151 MBytes 63.1 Mbits

[E1000-devel] Programa Premiada!

2013-08-12 Thread FABIANA C SOUZA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Compra Premiada: A cada compra superior a R$30,00 você ganha um núme

Re: [E1000-devel] tcp_window and ixgbe problem vs e1000e

2013-08-12 Thread Alexey Stoyanov
I done reload of ixgbe with MQ=0,0 and RSS=1,1 There are no luck with speed. [ 3] local xxx.xxx.185.135 port 5001 connected with yy.yy.74.11 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 0.0-20.0 sec 151 MBytes 63.1 Mbits/sec [ 3] local xxx.xxx.185.133 port 5001 connected with

Re: [E1000-devel] tcp_window and ixgbe problem vs e1000e

2013-08-12 Thread Alexander Duyck
One other thing that separates the 82574 and the 82599 is that 82599 is a multiqueue interface. Try loading the driver with RSS=1,1 to see if this issue might somehow be related to multiqueue. Other than that the only other thing I can think of would be to start rate limiting the ixgbe port itsel

Re: [E1000-devel] tcp_window and ixgbe problem vs e1000e

2013-08-12 Thread Alexey Stoyanov
One important thing that i not writed from start - this is real internet, so this is not a LAN, but WAN I have average 27 ms latency beetween hosts. --- yy.yy.74.11 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9012ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 27.203/27.444/27.791/0.23

Re: [E1000-devel] tcp_window and ixgbe problem vs e1000e

2013-08-12 Thread Alexander Duyck
Based on the info you provided I would say one possible red flag would be the flow control bits in the statistics. Specifically: > tx_flow_control_xon: 0 > rx_flow_control_xon: 164 > tx_flow_control_xoff: 0 > rx_flow_control_xoff: 164 > rx_csum_offload_errors: 1 The fact

Re: [E1000-devel] tcp_window and ixgbe problem vs e1000e

2013-08-12 Thread Alexey Stoyanov
03:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82599EB 10-Gigabit SFI/SFP+ Network Connection (rev 01) Subsystem: Intel Corporation Ethernet Server Adapter X520-2 Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- DisINTx+ Status: Ca

Re: [E1000-devel] tcp_window and ixgbe problem vs e1000e

2013-08-12 Thread Alexander Duyck
On 08/12/2013 12:09 PM, Alexey Stoyanov wrote: > Hello > I got one issue, and seems i need help from driver developers. > > I have a some servers located in a different datacenters around > Russia, we used mostly 82575/827576 intel nic managed by e1000e and > igb drivers. When i testing speed with

[E1000-devel] tcp_window and ixgbe problem vs e1000e

2013-08-12 Thread Alexey Stoyanov
Hello I got one issue, and seems i need help from driver developers. I have a some servers located in a different datacenters around Russia, we used mostly 82575/827576 intel nic managed by e1000e and igb drivers. When i testing speed with iperf from one 82576 card to another - all working good, i