I wanted just to add, while running the same exact testpmd on the other machine I won't get a single miss with the same patter traffic:
. testpmd> stop Telling cores to stop... Waiting for lcores to finish... ------- Forward Stats for RX Port= 0/Queue= 0 -> TX Port= 0/Queue= 0 ------- RX-packets: 61711939 TX-packets: 0 TX-dropped: 0 ------- Forward Stats for RX Port= 0/Queue= 1 -> TX Port= 0/Queue= 1 ------- RX-packets: 62889424 TX-packets: 0 TX-dropped: 0 ------- Forward Stats for RX Port= 0/Queue= 2 -> TX Port= 0/Queue= 2 ------- RX-packets: 61914199 TX-packets: 0 TX-dropped: 0 ------- Forward Stats for RX Port= 0/Queue= 3 -> TX Port= 0/Queue= 3 ------- RX-packets: 63484438 TX-packets: 0 TX-dropped: 0 ---------------------- Forward statistics for port 0 ---------------------- RX-packets: 250000000 RX-dropped: 0 RX-total: 250000000 TX-packets: 0 TX-dropped: 0 TX-total: 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- +++++++++++++++ Accumulated forward statistics for all ports+++++++++++++++ RX-packets: 250000000 RX-dropped: 0 RX-total: 250000000 TX-packets: 0 TX-dropped: 0 TX-total: 0 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ . In the lab I've the EPYC connected directly to the Xeon using a 100GbE link, both same RHL8.4 and same DPDK 21.02, running: . ./dpdk-testpmd -l 21-31 -n 8 -w 81:00.1 -- -i --rxq=4 --txq=4 --burst=64 --forward-mode=rxonly --rss-ip --total-num-mbufs=4194304 --nb-cores=4 . and sending from the other end with pktgen, the EPYC loss tons of packets (see my previous email), the Xeon don't loss anything. *Confusion!* Il 9/11/21 4:19 PM, Filip Janiszewski ha scritto: > Thanks, > > I knew that document and we've implemented many of those settings/rules, > but perhaps there's one crucial I've forgot? Wonder which one. > > Anyway, increasing the amount of queues impinge the performance, while > sending 250M packets over a 100GbE link to an Intel 810-cqda2 NIC > mounted on the EPYC Milan server, i see: > > . > 1 queue, 30Gbps, ~45Mpps, 64B frame = imiss: 54,590,111 > 2 queue, 30Gbps, ~45Mpps, 64B frame = imiss: 79,394,138 > 4 queue, 30Gbps, ~45Mpps, 64B frame = imiss: 87,414,030 > . > > With DPDK 21.02 on RHL8.4. I can't observe this situation while > capturing from my Intel server where increasing the queues leads to > better performance (while with the test input set I drop with one queue, > I do not drop anymore with 2 on the Intel server.) > > A customer with a brand new EPYC Milan server in his lab observed as > well this scenario which is a bit of a worry, but again it might be some > config/compilation issue we need do deal with? > > BTW, the same issue can be reproduced with testpmd, using 4 queues and > the same input data set (250M of 64bytes frame at 30Gbps): > > . > testpmd> stop > Telling cores to stop... > Waiting for lcores to finish... > > ------- Forward Stats for RX Port= 0/Queue= 0 -> TX Port= 0/Queue= 0 > ------- > RX-packets: 41762999 TX-packets: 0 TX-dropped: 0 > > > ------- Forward Stats for RX Port= 0/Queue= 1 -> TX Port= 0/Queue= 1 > ------- > RX-packets: 40152306 TX-packets: 0 TX-dropped: 0 > > > ------- Forward Stats for RX Port= 0/Queue= 2 -> TX Port= 0/Queue= 2 > ------- > RX-packets: 41153402 TX-packets: 0 TX-dropped: 0 > > > ------- Forward Stats for RX Port= 0/Queue= 3 -> TX Port= 0/Queue= 3 > ------- > RX-packets: 38341370 TX-packets: 0 TX-dropped: 0 > > > ---------------------- Forward statistics for port 0 > ---------------------- > RX-packets: 161410077 RX-dropped: 88589923 RX-total: 250000000 > TX-packets: 0 TX-dropped: 0 TX-total: 0 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > . > > . > testpmd> show port xstats 0 > ###### NIC extended statistics for port 0 > rx_good_packets: 161410081 > tx_good_packets: 0 > rx_good_bytes: 9684605284 > tx_good_bytes: 0 > rx_missed_errors: 88589923 > . > > Can't figure out what's wrong here.. > > > Il 9/11/21 12:20 PM, Steffen Weise ha scritto: >> Hi Filip, >> >> i have not seen the same issues. >> Are you aware of this tuning guide? I applied it and had no issues with >> intel 100G NIC. >> >> HPC Tuning Guide for AMD EPYC Processors >> http://developer.amd.com/wp-content/resources/56420.pdf >> <http://developer.amd.com/wp-content/resources/56420.pdf> >> >> Hope it helps. >> >> Cheers, >> Steffen Weise >> >> >>> Am 11.09.2021 um 10:56 schrieb Filip Janiszewski >>> <cont...@filipjaniszewski.com>: >>> >>> I ran more tests, >>> >>> This AMD server is a bit confusing, I can tune it to capture 28Mpps (64 >>> bytes frame) from one single core, so I would assume that using one more >>> core will at least increase a bit the capture capabilities, but it's >>> not, 1% more speed and it drops regardless of how many queues are >>> configured - I've not observed this situation on the Intel server, where >>> adding more queues/cores scale to higher throughput. >>> >>> This issue have been verified now with both Mellanox and Intel (810 >>> series, 100GbE) NICs. >>> >>> Anybody encountered anything similar? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Il 9/10/21 3:34 PM, Filip Janiszewski ha scritto: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I've switched a 100Gbe MLX ConnectX-4 card from an Intel Xeon server to >>>> an AMD EPYC server (running 75F3 CPU, 256GiB of RAM and PCIe4 lanes), >>>> and using the same capture software we can't get any faster than 10Gbps, >>>> when exceeding that speed regardless of the amount of queues configured >>>> the rx_discards_phy counter starts to raise and packets are lost in huge >>>> amounts. >>>> >>>> On the Xeon machine, I was able to get easily to 50Gbps with 4 queues. >>>> >>>> Is there any specific DPDK configuration that we might want to setup for >>>> those AMD servers? The software is DPDK based so I wonder if some build >>>> option is missing somewhere. >>>> >>>> What else I might want to look for to investigate this issue? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> BR, Filip >>> +48 666 369 823 > -- BR, Filip +48 666 369 823
