On 1/24/2016 at 5:56 AM, "Marcus Cenzatti" wrote:
>
>On 1/24/2016 at 5:17 AM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
>>
>>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Marcus Cenzatti
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/24/2016 at 3:33 AM, "Luigi Rizzo&quo
On 1/24/2016 at 5:17 AM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Marcus Cenzatti
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/24/2016 at 3:33 AM, "Luigi Rizzo"
>wrote:
>...
>
>> ok here it is
>>
>> this lowered pps rate to
On 1/24/2016 at 4:07 AM, "Navdeep Parhar" wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 08:38:24PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> ok, that's a discussion to have with navdeep. That /should/ work.
>> Someone may have changed it lately.
>
>Yes this used to work.
>
>>
>> Things should behave very well and pred
On 1/24/2016 at 3:33 AM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Marcus Cenzatti
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/24/2016 at 1:10 AM, "Luigi Rizzo"
>wrote:
>>>
>>>Thanks for re-running the experiments.
>>>
On 1/24/2016 at 2:10 AM, "Adrian Chadd" wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>Right, but then can you bring down cxl0 whilst leaving ncxl0 up?
>
no :(
different behaviour from T540?
chelsio# ifconfig cxl0
cxl0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500
options=ec00bb
ether 00:07:43:33:8d:c0
nd6 opt
On 1/24/2016 at 1:10 AM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
>
>Thanks for re-running the experiments.
>
>I am changing the subject so that in the archives it is clear
>that the chelsio card works fine.
>
>Overall the tests confirm that whenever you hit the host stack you
>are bound
>to the poor performance o
On 1/24/2016 at 1:20 AM, "Adrian Chadd" wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>You should be able to run with cxl0 down but ncxl0 up. If that
>doesn't
>work then it's a bug. It worked when I last tried 40g bridging
>(about
>5 months ago.)
>
>Try that manually - ifconfig cxl0 down; ifconfig ncxl0 up
>
>
tried, n
On 1/23/2016 at 10:11 PM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Navdeep Parhar
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:12:28AM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Navdeep Parhar
> wrote:
>>> >
On 1/23/2016 at 1:31 PM, "Adrian Chadd" wrote:
>
>For random src/dst ports and IPs and on the chelsio t5 40gig
>hardware,
>I was getting what, uhm, 40mil tx pps and around 25ish mil rx pps?
>
>The chelsio rx path really wants to be coalescing rx buffers, which
>the netmap API currently doesn't
On 1/23/2016 at 4:00 PM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Marcus Cenzatti
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/23/2016 at 3:35 PM, "Luigi Rizzo"
>wrote:
>>>
>>>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Marcus Cenzatt
On 1/23/2016 at 4:38 PM, "Navdeep Parhar" wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:48:39PM -0200, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
>...
>>
>> woops, my bad, yes probably we had some drop, with -S and -D now
>I get 1.2Mpps.
>
>Run "netstat -hdw1 -i cxl" on
On 1/23/2016 at 3:35 PM, "Luigi Rizzo" wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Marcus Cenzatti
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/23/2016 at 1:40 PM, "Navdeep Parhar"
>wrote:
>>>
>>>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:34:27AM -0200, Marcus
On 1/23/2016 at 1:29 PM, "Adrian Chadd" wrote:
>
>What are you doing for RX? More netmap? Or the normal stack?
yes, netmap w/ pkt-gen -f rx, I just sent a transcript for a testing session in
my previous e-mail
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing li
On 1/23/2016 at 1:40 PM, "Navdeep Parhar" wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:34:27AM -0200, Marcus Cenzatti wrote:
>> hello,
>>
>> I am testing a chelsio t520-so-cr connected to a Intel card with
>ix(4)
>> driver, I can get the ncxl0 interface to
hello,
I am testing a chelsio t520-so-cr connected to a Intel card with ix(4) driver,
I can get the ncxl0 interface to transmit at 14Mpps to another chelsio or to a
Intel card. However I can only get 800Kpps-1Mpps for RX tests from both chelsio
or Intel.
I have test with both FreeBSD 11 and Fr
15 matches
Mail list logo
