> 22.02.2026 18:25, Kirill A. Korinsky пишет: > > I've tried it on my EdgeRouter 4. > > That I do have with snapshot which I just installed: > > machine 1 -> ER4: > > > > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr > > [ 5] 0.00-30.00 sec 1.39 GBytes 397 Mbits/sec 15928 > > sender > > [ 5] 0.00-30.01 sec 1.39 GBytes 397 Mbits/sec > > receiver > > machine 1 -> ER4: > > > > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr > > [ 5] 0.00-30.00 sec 590 MBytes 165 Mbits/sec 65568 > > sender > > [ 5] 0.00-30.06 sec 590 MBytes 165 Mbits/sec > > receiver
> Thanks for testing, I certainly did not expect such a massive drop. > I'll test here as well and try to see what this is about before committing > anything. > I wonder, if this is "just" a weak CPU or something else, e.g. specific to > octeon, NIC drivers and/or in your setup. > Can you share your iperf commands and a dmesg for completeness, please? > > Cc'ing Janne: You tried a similar diff on your boxes; care to share > which ones and whether you saw any noticable change in performance? My tests also included a diff to make cnmac(4) put ifq's to different softnets which it doesn't now, since the ifq placement uses the softc "index" and at least on my ER-8, all eight cnmacs have index 0, but different "ports" or some other property in softc, so I also had a silly counter bumping the number by one for each attaching cnmac to make them end up on different ifq -> softnet threads, otherwise I got ncpusfound softnets but all cnmac always ended up on softnet0. I will rebenchmark on erl3 and ER8 to see how they react, but as noticed, just having more threads should not really hurt like this, worst case should have been "some slight overhead but no improvements" -- May the most significant bit of your life be positive.
