Hey Rob! Great questions. Here's way too much information taken from
internal notes I have on the subject, to help you process all of this :)
{{{
E810 QCDA2 provides 100 Gb aggregate between both ports. Dual port to USRP
is not recommended since UHD doesn't "know" this limitation.
E810 2QCAD2 provides 2 bifurcated 100 Gb links, so can do 200 Gb aggregate.
I -think- one has to tell BIOS / OS about this bifurcation to get the NIC
fully working. I don't have one to test out.
There are now newer Intel E82* NICs. I don't know their capabilities.
Any of the Intel E8* NICs can be configured in various ways, the most
relevant for USRPs are:
* 2x1x100 : 2 ports, each hosting 1 virtual link at 100 Gb
* 100 : 1 port with a single virtual link at 100 Gb
* 8x10 (formerly 2x4x10 : 2 ports, each hosting 4 virtual link at 10 Gb each
{{{
$ sudo ./epct64e -get -nic 1
Ethernet Port Configuration Tool
EPCT version: v1.42.24.04
Copyright 2019 - 2024 Intel Corporation.
Available Port Options:
==========================================================================
Port Quad 0 Quad 1
Option Option (Gbps) L0 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7
======= ============================= ================ ================
2x1x100 -> 100 - - - 100 - - -
2x50 -> 50 - 50 - - - - -
4x25 -> 25 25 25 25 - - - -
2x2x25 -> 25 25 - - 25 25 - -
Active 8x10 -> 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
100 -> 100 - - - - - - -
}}}
FWIW: We're had a number of customers with E810 CQDA2 issues recently. My
current belief is that the NIC (NVM) and OS drivers do not play nicely
together & hence updating both to the latest is needed to get everything
working properly.
Intel E8* NICs used the ICE driver, which is in active development & works
pretty well overall. ICE drivers -do not- work seamlessly with DPDK unlike
Mellanox ones. It's easy to create a script to do the driver binding & link
stuff both down and up, but this can be very confusing for people not used
to taking down a link and rebinding the driver & then the reverse to get it
back working in the system again.
The Mellanox drivers & hardware use a little less CPU time than the Intel
ones, so a little better single-core performance — which helps when using
DPDK and doing max data throughput.
Yes, 500 GS/s on 4 channels (2 GS/s aggregate) is 64 Gb/s and thus well
within the capabilities of a single 100 Gb port on either NIC ... That's
fine for an X410. For an X440 we double that to 4 GS/s aggregate, which
clearly requires 2x 100 Gb links. For this use-case the Mellanox NICs are
the way to go.
}}}
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 3:53 PM Rob Kossler via USRP-users <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I am in the process of purchasing a 100Gb NIC for use with the X410 and
> have seen documentation and previous posts indicating that the ConnectX
> NICs are preferred. But I did note in the DPDK knowledge base article that
> the Intel E810 could also work. I prefer the E810 because it seems to be
> less expensive and can be configured for 4x10Gb, but I don't want to create
> a headache for myself. Let me know if you have had success or issues with
> the E810 using a 100Gb link (or two 100Gb links) to the X410.
>
> I am also confused about the E810 which comes in a couple of 100Gb models:
> CQDA2 and 2CQDA2, where they both have two 100Gb QSFP28 ports, but the
> former can only handle aggregate 100Gb whereas the latter can handle
> aggregate 200Gb. My confusion is "why does it matter for the X410?". With
> 4 channels at 500 MS/s, the aggregate bit rate is only 64Gb/s so why does
> it matter if the E810 CQDA2 only supports aggregate 100Gb? It seems to me
> that either model supports the maximum rate of the X410.
>
> Thanks.
> Rob
> _______________________________________________
> USRP-users mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
USRP-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
