Hi Donald, Luca OK, could this be it???
R810 first # numademo 128M memcpy 4 nodes available memory with no policy memcpy Avg 6103.61 MB/s Max 6114.70 MB/s Min 6020.62 MB/s local memory memcpy Avg 6112.45 MB/s Max 6113.59 MB/s Min 6109.69 MB/s memory interleaved on all nodes memcpy Avg 4596.04 MB/s Max 4598.86 MB/s Min 4592.72 MB/s memory on node 0 memcpy Avg 4298.76 MB/s Max 4299.65 MB/s Min 4297.44 MB/s memory on node 1 memcpy Avg 4311.93 MB/s Max 4318.46 MB/s Min 4263.59 MB/s memory on node 2 memcpy Avg 4224.10 MB/s Max 4230.39 MB/s Min 4174.73 MB/s memory on node 3 memcpy Avg 6103.11 MB/s Max 6115.82 MB/s Min 6009.03 MB/s memory interleaved on 0 1 memcpy Avg 4272.03 MB/s Max 4274.59 MB/s Min 4270.51 MB/s memory interleaved on 0 2 memcpy Avg 4229.02 MB/s Max 4232.00 MB/s Min 4227.33 MB/s memory interleaved on 1 2 memcpy Avg 4238.95 MB/s Max 4241.36 MB/s Min 4235.47 MB/s memory interleaved on 0 1 2 memcpy Avg 4254.17 MB/s Max 4255.88 MB/s Min 4251.84 MB/s memory interleaved on 0 3 memcpy Avg 5007.41 MB/s Max 5008.31 MB/s Min 5006.44 MB/s memory interleaved on 1 3 memcpy Avg 5015.63 MB/s Max 5017.49 MB/s Min 5014.11 MB/s memory interleaved on 0 1 3 memcpy Avg 4737.35 MB/s Max 4746.87 MB/s Min 4677.06 MB/s memory interleaved on 2 3 memcpy Avg 4966.48 MB/s Max 4967.53 MB/s Min 4965.69 MB/s memory interleaved on 0 2 3 memcpy Avg 4693.85 MB/s Max 4710.88 MB/s Min 4636.51 MB/s memory interleaved on 1 2 3 memcpy Avg 4716.13 MB/s Max 4718.17 MB/s Min 4714.19 MB/s memory interleaved on 0 1 2 3 memcpy Avg 4583.39 MB/s Max 4597.28 MB/s Min 4530.56 MB/s setting preferred node to 0 memory without policy memcpy Avg 4294.01 MB/s Max 4300.47 MB/s Min 4243.50 MB/s setting preferred node to 1 memory without policy memcpy Avg 4318.67 MB/s Max 4319.43 MB/s Min 4315.13 MB/s setting preferred node to 2 memory without policy memcpy Avg 4225.77 MB/s Max 4231.19 MB/s Min 4180.33 MB/s setting preferred node to 3 memory without policy memcpy Avg 6103.52 MB/s Max 6115.82 MB/s Min 6007.69 MB/s manual interleaving to all nodes memcpy Avg 4590.92 MB/s Max 4599.65 MB/s Min 4531.93 MB/s manual interleaving on node 0/1 memcpy Avg 4267.89 MB/s Max 4275.27 MB/s Min 4216.57 MB/s current interleave node 0 running on node 0, preferred node 0 local memory memcpy Avg 6055.75 MB/s Max 6058.12 MB/s Min 6052.39 MB/s memory interleaved on all nodes memcpy Avg 4620.07 MB/s Max 4634.59 MB/s Min 4576.44 MB/s memory interleaved on node 0/1 memcpy Avg 4991.07 MB/s Max 5009.43 MB/s Min 4869.84 MB/s alloc on node 1 memcpy Avg 4328.33 MB/s Max 4329.74 MB/s Min 4319.57 MB/s alloc on node 2 memcpy Avg 4338.42 MB/s Max 4356.30 MB/s Min 4269.15 MB/s alloc on node 3 memcpy Avg 4318.31 MB/s Max 4326.39 MB/s Min 4302.68 MB/s local allocation memcpy Avg 6057.60 MB/s Max 6058.94 MB/s Min 6055.12 MB/s setting wrong preferred node memcpy Avg 4326.59 MB/s Max 4329.60 MB/s Min 4317.35 MB/s setting correct preferred node memcpy Avg 6045.33 MB/s Max 6058.67 MB/s Min 5944.89 MB/s running on node 1, preferred node 0 local memory memcpy Avg 6069.85 MB/s Max 6070.73 MB/s Min 6068.53 MB/s memory interleaved on all nodes memcpy Avg 4621.28 MB/s Max 4624.05 MB/s Min 4618.80 MB/s memory interleaved on node 0/1 memcpy Avg 5005.25 MB/s Max 5006.82 MB/s Min 4996.56 MB/s alloc on node 0 memcpy Avg 4314.46 MB/s Max 4321.52 MB/s Min 4256.83 MB/s alloc on node 2 memcpy Avg 4291.12 MB/s Max 4291.81 MB/s Min 4290.44 MB/s alloc on node 3 memcpy Avg 4336.58 MB/s Max 4342.77 MB/s Min 4288.24 MB/s local allocation memcpy Avg 6070.04 MB/s Max 6072.10 MB/s Min 6068.53 MB/s setting wrong preferred node memcpy Avg 4285.92 MB/s Max 4291.40 MB/s Min 4239.75 MB/s setting correct preferred node memcpy Avg 6069.96 MB/s Max 6071.00 MB/s Min 6068.81 MB/s running on node 2, preferred node 0 local memory memcpy Avg 6109.00 MB/s Max 6122.51 MB/s Min 5995.61 MB/s memory interleaved on all nodes memcpy Avg 4588.44 MB/s Max 4592.41 MB/s Min 4585.66 MB/s memory interleaved on node 0/1 memcpy Avg 4257.87 MB/s Max 4258.99 MB/s Min 4255.07 MB/s alloc on node 0 memcpy Avg 4314.82 MB/s Max 4321.66 MB/s Min 4259.66 MB/s alloc on node 1 memcpy Avg 4262.60 MB/s Max 4269.01 MB/s Min 4216.84 MB/s alloc on node 3 memcpy Avg 4228.30 MB/s Max 4229.86 MB/s Min 4224.93 MB/s local allocation memcpy Avg 6109.92 MB/s Max 6122.79 MB/s Min 6011.72 MB/s setting wrong preferred node memcpy Avg 4223.70 MB/s Max 4229.73 MB/s Min 4175.90 MB/s setting correct preferred node memcpy Avg 6109.78 MB/s Max 6122.51 MB/s Min 6002.58 MB/s running on node 3, preferred node 0 local memory memcpy Avg 6113.31 MB/s Max 6114.15 MB/s Min 6111.36 MB/s memory interleaved on all nodes memcpy Avg 4595.63 MB/s Max 4597.44 MB/s Min 4594.45 MB/s memory interleaved on node 0/1 memcpy Avg 4269.70 MB/s Max 4271.32 MB/s Min 4262.50 MB/s alloc on node 0 memcpy Avg 4292.58 MB/s Max 4299.23 MB/s Min 4236.14 MB/s alloc on node 1 memcpy Avg 4312.16 MB/s Max 4318.60 MB/s Min 4263.45 MB/s alloc on node 2 memcpy Avg 4224.20 MB/s Max 4230.26 MB/s Min 4178.37 MB/s local allocation memcpy Avg 6113.42 MB/s Max 6114.42 MB/s Min 6112.20 MB/s setting wrong preferred node memcpy Avg 4292.88 MB/s Max 4300.75 MB/s Min 4228.53 MB/s setting correct preferred node memcpy Avg 6102.86 MB/s Max 6116.10 MB/s Min 5999.90 MB/s Now R710 # numademo 128M memcpy 2 nodes available memory with no policy memcpy Avg 16900.16 MB/s Max 17843.36 MB/s Min 13960.65 MB/s local memory memcpy Avg 17831.27 MB/s Max 17840.98 MB/s Min 17772.47 MB/s memory interleaved on all nodes memcpy Avg 13256.20 MB/s Max 13335.09 MB/s Min 12613.26 MB/s memory on node 0 memcpy Avg 17838.38 MB/s Max 17843.36 MB/s Min 17831.50 MB/s memory on node 1 memcpy Avg 10849.47 MB/s Max 10855.53 MB/s Min 10843.25 MB/s memory interleaved on 0 1 memcpy Avg 13330.99 MB/s Max 13333.77 MB/s Min 13324.50 MB/s setting preferred node to 0 memory without policy memcpy Avg 17717.58 MB/s Max 17840.98 MB/s Min 16712.46 MB/s setting preferred node to 1 memory without policy memcpy Avg 10852.45 MB/s Max 10856.40 MB/s Min 10846.75 MB/s manual interleaving to all nodes memcpy Avg 13331.78 MB/s Max 13333.77 MB/s Min 13329.80 MB/s manual interleaving on node 0/1 memcpy Avg 13306.01 MB/s Max 13333.77 MB/s Min 13082.93 MB/s current interleave node 0 running on node 0, preferred node 0 local memory memcpy Avg 17603.71 MB/s Max 17840.98 MB/s Min 16708.29 MB/s memory interleaved on all nodes memcpy Avg 13327.68 MB/s Max 13333.77 MB/s Min 13295.47 MB/s memory interleaved on node 0/1 memcpy Avg 13331.92 MB/s Max 13333.77 MB/s Min 13329.80 MB/s alloc on node 1 memcpy Avg 10734.41 MB/s Max 10855.53 MB/s Min 10188.85 MB/s local allocation memcpy Avg 17838.14 MB/s Max 17840.98 MB/s Min 17836.24 MB/s setting wrong preferred node memcpy Avg 10467.28 MB/s Max 10855.53 MB/s Min 7928.27 MB/s setting correct preferred node memcpy Avg 17836.95 MB/s Max 17840.98 MB/s Min 17831.50 MB/s running on node 1, preferred node 0 local memory memcpy Avg 17358.28 MB/s Max 17843.36 MB/s Min 13969.37 MB/s memory interleaved on all nodes memcpy Avg 13332.18 MB/s Max 13335.09 MB/s Min 13313.93 MB/s memory interleaved on node 0/1 memcpy Avg 13334.56 MB/s Max 13336.42 MB/s Min 13332.45 MB/s alloc on node 0 memcpy Avg 10852.10 MB/s Max 10854.65 MB/s Min 10851.14 MB/s local allocation memcpy Avg 17837.43 MB/s Max 17843.36 MB/s Min 17833.87 MB/s setting wrong preferred node memcpy Avg 10853.24 MB/s Max 10855.53 MB/s Min 10850.26 MB/s setting correct preferred node memcpy Avg 17839.09 MB/s Max 17840.98 MB/s Min 17833.87 MB/s That's quite a difference! Luca, could you run the same on your test box, so we can compare? Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Skidmore, Donald C [mailto:donald.c.skidm...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 4:19 PM To: Luca Deri; LEHANE,ANDREW (A-Scotland,ex1) Cc: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: Problems with Dell R810. Hey Luca, Sounds like your memory may be a fair amount lot slower on the larger system. This isn't unusual as these systems also support higher memory limits. One quick way to test would be to run numademo - numademo 128M memcpy to see the diff's between the two systems. Thanks, -Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidm...@intel.com> >-----Original Message----- >From: Luca Deri [mailto:d...@ntop.org] >Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 7:52 AM >To: andrew_leh...@agilent.com >Cc: Skidmore, Donald C; e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >Subject: Re: Problems with Dell R810. > >Andrew >just to be precise (I don't want to tease you of course), on a X3440 we >can send 14.88 Mpps (~ 26 Mpps on two ports) so we're quite close now. >As of the 710 problem I have reported, I will ask the 710 user who has >reported the issue. > >Now the question is: where all these issues are coming from? Why a 810 >(more powerful than a 710) reports a much poor performance? Do you have >the chance to read the BIOS revision of your 710 so I can compare it >with the one of the other use who as issues? > >This said: great news. > >Cheers Luca > >On Sep 15, 2011, at 4:45 PM, <andrew_leh...@agilent.com> wrote: > >> Hi Donald and Luca, >> >> I have managed to obtain the loan a R710 and using the Silicom card >and Luca's code I can send in excess of 14Million packets per sec, so >whatever the problem with the R710 Luca has reported it is not the same >as my issues with the R810! Of course, unless my R810 has suffered the >same fault as the R710 listed below and both are now broken in the same >way. Does a reboot clear your other user's problem Luca or is it >permanent? >> >> Luca here's the details... >> >> ./pfsend -i dna:eth4 -g 1 -l 60 -n 0 -r 10 >> >> TX rate: [current 14'238'148.23 pps/9.57 Gbps][average 14'223'555.75 >pps/9.56 Gbps][total 2'147'799'248.00 pkts] >> TX rate: [current 14'240'502.43 pps/9.57 Gbps][average 14'223'667.24 >pps/9.56 Gbps][total 2'162'040'021.00 pkts] >> TX rate: [current 14'239'155.21 pps/9.57 Gbps][average 14'223'768.47 >pps/9.56 Gbps][total 2'176'279'461.00 pkts] >> TX rate: [current 14'238'531.22 pps/9.57 Gbps][average 14'223'864.33 >pps/9.56 Gbps][total 2'190'518'277.00 pkts] >> >> Thanks >> >> Andrew >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Luca Deri [mailto:d...@ntop.org] >> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 3:05 PM >> To: Skidmore, Donald C >> Cc: LEHANE,ANDREW (A-Scotland,ex1); e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> Subject: Re: Problems with Dell R810. >> >> Donald >> I have been reported by another PF_RING user of the following problem >(Dell 710 and Intel 82576): >> >> Wed Sep 14 2011 06:00:11 An OEM diagnostic event has occurred. >> Critical 0.000009Wed Sep 14 2011 06:00:11 A bus fatal error was >detected on a component at bus 0 device 6 function 0. >> Critical 0.000008Wed Sep 14 2011 06:00:11 A bus fatal error was >detected on a component at slot 1. >> Normal 0.000007Wed Sep 14 2011 06:00:11 An OEM diagnostic event has >occurred. >> Critical 0.000006Wed Sep 14 2011 06:00:11 A bus fatal error was >detected on a component at bus 0 device 5 function 0. >> Critical 0.000005Wed Sep 14 2011 06:00:10 A bus fatal error was >detected on a component at slot 2. >> Normal 0.000004Wed Sep 14 2011 06:00:08 An OEM diagnostic event has >occurred. >> Critical 0.000003Wed Sep 14 2011 06:00:08 A bus fatal error was >detected on a component at bus 0 device 6 function 0. >> Critical 0.000002Wed Sep 14 2011 06:00:08 A bus fatal error was >detected on a component at slot 1. >> Normal 0.000001Wed Sep 14 2011 06:00:08 An OEM diagnostic event has >occurred. >> >> >> Additionally, we captured the following logs as well: >> alloc kstat_irqs on node -1 >> pcieport 0000:00:09.0: irq 62 for MSI/MSI-X pcieport 0000:00:09.0: >setting latency timer to 64 aer 0000:00:01.0:pcie02: PCIe errors >handled by platform firmware. >> aer 0000:00:03.0:pcie02: PCIe errors handled by platform firmware. >> aer 0000:00:04.0:pcie02: PCIe errors handled by platform firmware. >> aer 0000:00:05.0:pcie02: PCIe errors handled by platform firmware. >> aer 0000:00:06.0:pcie02: PCIe errors handled by platform firmware. >> aer 0000:00:07.0:pcie02: PCIe errors handled by platform firmware. >> aer 0000:00:09.0:pcie02: PCIe errors handled by platform firmware. >> >> I believe there's a BIOS issue on Dell's. What do you think? >> >> Regards Luca >> >> >> On Sep 4, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Luca Deri wrote: >> >>> Donald >>> thanks for the reply. I don't think this is a PF_RING issue (even >using the vanilla ixgbe driver we observe the same behavior) but rather >a Dell/Intel issue. From what I see on dmesg, it seems that DCA is >disabled and we have no way to enable it. I'm not sure if this is due >to BIOS limitations. What I can tell you is that a low-end core2duo is >much faster than this multiprocessor machine, and this is an indication >that there's something wrong on this setup. >>> >>> Regards Luca >>> >>> On Sep 3, 2011, at 2:33 AM, Skidmore, Donald C wrote: >>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: andrew_leh...@agilent.com [mailto:andrew_leh...@agilent.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 2:17 AM >>>>> To: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> Cc: d...@ntop.org >>>>> Subject: [E1000-devel] Problems with Dell R810. >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I recently purchased as Dell R810 for use with Luca Deri's PF_RING >>>>> networking driver for the 10 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver >>>>> and the Silicom 10Gig card that uses the 82599EB chipset, machine >>>>> is running Fedora Core 14. >>>>> >>>>> Luca's driver is described here: >>>>> http://www.ntop.org/blog/pf_ring/introducing-the-10-gbit-pf_ring- >dna >>>>> - >>>>> driver/ >>>>> >>>>> Only the machine doesn't seem to want to play ball. We have tried >>>>> a number of things and so eventually Luca suggested this mailing >list, >>>>> I do hope someone can help? >>>>> >>>>> The machine spec is as follows. >>>>> >>>>> 2x Intel Xeon L7555 Processor (1.86GHz, 8C, 24M Cache, 5.86 GT/s >>>>> QPI, 95W TDP, Turbo, HT), DDR3-980MHz 128GB Memory for 2/4CPU >>>>> (16x8GB Quad Rank LV RDIMMs) 1066MHz Additional 2x Intel Xeon >>>>> L7555 Processor (1.86GHz, 8C, 24M Cache, 5.86 GT/s QPI, 95W TDP, >>>>> Turbo, HT), Upgrade to 4CPU >>>>> 2 600GB SAS 6Gbps 10k 2.5" HD >>>>> Silicom 82599EB 10 Gigabit Ethernet NIC. >>>>> >>>>> According to Luca's experiments on his test machine, not an R810 >>>>> (actually quite a low spec machine by comparison) we should be >>>>> getting the following results, unfortunately, the R810 performance >>>>> is very poor; it struggles at less than 8% capacity of a 10 Gig >link >>>>> on one core; Luca's test application (byte and packet counts only) >>>>> and his machine can process a 100% of a 10 Gig Link on one core. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ntop.org/blog/pf_ring/how-to-sendreceive-26mpps-using- >>>>> pf_ring-on-commodity-hardware/ >>>>> >>>>> Importantly, Luca also seems to be getting excellent CPU usage >>>>> figures, see the bottom of the page, indicating that both DCA and >>>>> IOATDMA are operating correctly. My problem is that even on light >>>>> network loads my CPU hits 100% and packets are dropped, >>>>> indicating, to me, that DCA/IOATDMA isn't working. >>>>> >>>>> I have switched on IOATDMA in the Dell's BIOS, it's off by >>>>> default, and discovered the following site where it talks about >>>>> configuring >a >>>>> machine to use DCA and IOATDMA etc. I even found a chap who >reported >>>>> similar performance problems but with a Dell R710 and how he fixed >>>>> it. I tried all this but still no improvement! >>>>> >>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/ntop- >m...@listgateway.unipi.it/msg01185. >>>>> html >>>>> >>>>> The R810 seems to use a 7500 chipset. >>>>> >>>>> >http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/products/pedge/pedge_r810_specs >>>>> heet >>>>> _en.pdf >>>>> >>>>> So, I think this is the R810 chipset reference http://www- >>>>> techdoc.intel.com/content/dam/doc/datasheet/7500-chipset- >datasheet.p >>>>> df, >>>>> see page 453 >>>>> >>>>> The program sets bits (0x8C @ bit 0) but it doesn't seem to stay >>>>> set, so consecutive calls to "dca_probe" seem to always say "DCA >>>>> disabled, enabling now." >>>>> >>>>> I commented out some of the defines in the original code as they >are >>>>> already set in the Linux kernel and, of course, changed the >>>>> registers to point to the ones on page 453 - I hope they are >correct. >>>>> >>>>> Still no luck the CPU usage is way too high. >>>>> >>>>> #define _XOPEN_SOURCE 500 >>>>> >>>>> #include <stdio.h> >>>>> #include <stdlib.h> >>>>> #include <pci/pci.h> >>>>> #include <sys/io.h> >>>>> #include <fcntl.h> >>>>> #include <sys/stat.h> >>>>> #include <sys/types.h> >>>>> #include <unistd.h> >>>>> >>>>> #define INTEL_BRIDGE_DCAEN_OFFSET 0x8c >>>>> #define INTEL_BRIDGE_DCAEN_BIT 0 >>>>> /*#define PCI_HEADER_TYPE_BRIDGE 1 */ >>>>> /*#define PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL 0x8086 *//* lol @ intel >*/ >>>>> /*#define PCI_HEADER_TYPE 0x0e */ >>>>> #define MSR_P6_DCA_CAP 0x000001f8 >>>>> #define NUM_CPUS 64 >>>>> >>>>> void check_dca(struct pci_dev *dev) { >>>>> u32 dca = pci_read_long(dev, INTEL_BRIDGE_DCAEN_OFFSET); >>>>> printf("DCA old value %d.\n", dca); if (!(dca & (1 << >>>>> INTEL_BRIDGE_DCAEN_BIT))) { >>>>> printf("DCA disabled, enabling now.\n"); >>>>> dca |= 1 << INTEL_BRIDGE_DCAEN_BIT; >>>>> printf("DCA new value %d.\n", dca); >>>>> pci_write_long(dev, INTEL_BRIDGE_DCAEN_OFFSET, dca); } >>>>> else { >>>>> printf("DCA already enabled!\n"); } } >>>>> >>>>> void msr_dca_enable(void) >>>>> { >>>>> char msr_file_name[64]; >>>>> int fd = 0, i = 0; >>>>> u64 data; >>>>> >>>>> for (;i < NUM_CPUS; i++) { >>>>> sprintf(msr_file_name, "/dev/cpu/%d/msr", i); >>>>> fd = open(msr_file_name, O_RDWR); >>>>> if (fd < 0) { >>>>> perror("open failed!"); >>>>> exit(1); >>>>> } >>>>> if (pread(fd, &data, sizeof(data), MSR_P6_DCA_CAP) != >>>>> sizeof(data)) { >>>>> perror("reading msr failed!"); >>>>> exit(1); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> printf("got msr value: %*llx\n", 1, (unsigned long >>>>> long)data); >>>>> if (!(data & 1)) { >>>>> data |= 1; >>>>> if (pwrite(fd, &data, sizeof(data), MSR_P6_DCA_CAP) != >>>>> sizeof(data)) { >>>>> perror("writing msr failed!"); >>>>> exit(1); >>>>> } >>>>> } else { >>>>> printf("msr already enabled for CPU %d\n", i); >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> int main(void) >>>>> { >>>>> struct pci_access *pacc; >>>>> struct pci_dev *dev; >>>>> u8 type; >>>>> >>>>> pacc = pci_alloc(); >>>>> pci_init(pacc); >>>>> >>>>> pci_scan_bus(pacc); >>>>> for (dev = pacc->devices; dev; dev=dev->next) { >>>>> pci_fill_info(dev, PCI_FILL_IDENT | PCI_FILL_BASES); >>>>> if (dev->vendor_id == PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL) { >>>>> type = pci_read_byte(dev, PCI_HEADER_TYPE); >>>>> if (type == PCI_HEADER_TYPE_BRIDGE) { >>>>> check_dca(dev); >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> msr_dca_enable(); >>>>> return 0; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> As you can see ixgbe, dca and ioatdma modules are loaded. >>>>> >>>>> # lsmod >>>>> >>>>> Module Size Used by >>>>> ixgbe 200547 0 >>>>> pf_ring 327754 4 >>>>> tcp_lp 2111 0 >>>>> fuse 61934 3 >>>>> sunrpc 201569 1 >>>>> ip6t_REJECT 4263 2 >>>>> nf_conntrack_ipv6 18078 4 >>>>> ip6table_filter 1687 1 >>>>> ip6_tables 17497 1 ip6table_filter >>>>> ipv6 286505 184 ip6t_REJECT,nf_conntrack_ipv6 >>>>> uinput 7368 0 >>>>> ioatdma 51376 72 >>>>> i7core_edac 16210 0 >>>>> dca 5590 2 ixgbe,ioatdma >>>>> bnx2 65569 0 >>>>> mdio 3934 0 >>>>> ses 6319 0 >>>>> dcdbas 8540 0 >>>>> edac_core 41336 1 i7core_edac >>>>> iTCO_wdt 11256 0 >>>>> iTCO_vendor_support 2610 1 iTCO_wdt >>>>> power_meter 9545 0 >>>>> hed 2206 0 >>>>> serio_raw 4640 0 >>>>> microcode 18662 0 >>>>> enclosure 7518 1 ses >>>>> megaraid_sas 37653 2 >>>>> >>>>> # uname -a >>>>> Linux test 2.6.35.14-95.fc14.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Aug 16 21:01:58 UTC >>>>> 2011 >>>>> x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> Hey Andrew, >>>> >>>> Sorry you're having issues with the 28599 and ixgbe. I haven't >>>> done >much with the PF_RING networking driver but maybe we can see what is >going on with the ixgbe driver. It would help to know a little be more >information like: >>>> >>>> - What there any interesting system log messages of note? >>>> >>>> - How are your interrupt being divided among your queue's (cat >/proc/interrupts)? I know your testing with just one CPU are you also >just using one queue or affinizing one to that CPU? >>>> >>>> - Could you provide the lspic -vvv output. To verify you NIC is >getting a PCIe x8 connection. >>>> >>>> - What kind of cpu usage are you seeing if you don't use just the >base driver running at line rate with something like netperf/iperf? >>>> >>>> - Have you attempted this without DCA? Like I said above I don't >have much experience with PF_RING so I may be missing some fundamental >advantage it is suppose to gain from operation with DCA in this mode. >>>> >>>> These are just off the top of my head if I think of anything else >I'll let you know. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidm...@intel.com> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. >>> Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, >>> by definition, not smart enough to debug it. - Brian W. Kernighan >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses from deploying virtual desktops? How do next-generation virtual desktops provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/ _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
