Hi Anna, > I do actually also have I534 devices on the board, but I see exactly the same > performance drop on those NICs too. They are sold as "Server Adapters" so I > do image them being good enough for higher throughput. Yes but it depends on what kind of slot the NIC is plugged into. Plugging a server NIC into a x1 PCIe slot is not going to make anything perform better. It will still be PCI bandwidth limited.
So if you post the output from 'lspci -vvv' we will be able to see what is in system and what kind of slots the NIC's are plugged into. As Todd points out we aren't the CPU folks but until you run the CPU out of cycles in the test you probably can't tell what's going on regarding throughput. Thanks. Cheers, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Anna Fischer [mailto:a.fisc...@sirrix.com] > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 12:25 AM > To: Ronciak, John <john.ronc...@intel.com>; e1000- > de...@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: Poor IPsec performance and high ksoftirqd load > > > > Am 25.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Ronciak, John: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Anna Fischer [mailto:a.fisc...@sirrix.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 10:53 AM > >> To: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >> Subject: [E1000-devel] Poor IPsec performance and high ksoftirqd load > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm running Linux 4.3.3 (Gentoo) and standard igb drivers. I have > >> trouble with the performance of IPSec on my platform. The platform > >> has Intel Ethernet Controller I211 (1GbE) and Intel Atom CPUs > >> (4-core) from the C2000 product family. > >> > >> My platform only seems to be able to do ~300Mbit/s when receiving > >> IPSec packets. When sending IPSec packets it can do ~600Mbit/s. The > >> weird thing is, the ksoftirqd handler seems to run at very high CPU > >> load. I don't understand where that comes from. I have traced using > >> kernel function tracing and I can see that it is taking a lot of time > >> do handle do_softirq and functions like igb_poll(). I was wondering > >> if it was normal that this takes up so much CPU? Also it seems that this is > only the case in the following scenario: > >> > >> The platform receives IPSec packets on eth0, then decrypts them, and > >> routes them out via eth1 (plaintext). The packet stream is TCP. So > >> for each amount of packets going this way, there is an TCP ACK packet > >> going back the other way. E.g. plaintext incoming via eth1, IPSec > encryption and TX out via eth0. > >> > >> For me this sounds like a very normal use case of IPSec, but still > >> the platform does not seem to be able to handle it. As my CPU load is > >> high, but not maxed out, the CPU does not seem to be the bottleneck. > >> So my guess is it might also be the NIC. I do not have any > >> configuration options in my igb driver, and I already tried a few option > with ethtool, but I don't get any improvements. > >> Does anyone have a good idea on how to track what is slowing down the > >> system? > >> > >> Many thanks, > >> Anna > >> > >> > > Hi Anna, > > > > So the i211 is a very low end client Ethernet device (PCIe x1 2with limited > buffer space). So it's nowhere near as performant as the server devices. > That said, I'm not sure what you are using to test this with. Testing with a > single TCP stream can always be problematic when looking at wire > bandwidth. Do things change if you start multiple TCP strings? It will use > more CPU as the packets need to be decrypted but you should see an > increase in throughput, at least until you run out of CPU cycles. The single > stream TCP throughput is well known to be an issue as any single TCP > connection can only have so much data outstanding before being ACK'd. So > using multiple TPC connections changes that and should increase your overall > throughput. Please give that a try. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Cheers, > > John > > I do actually also have I534 devices on the board, but I see exactly the same > performance drop on those NICs too. They are sold as "Server Adapters" so I > do image them being good enough for higher throughput. > > Cheers, > Anna ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ 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
