On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:48:27AM +0100, Elias Abacioglu wrote: > Yes, I have one node running with Solarflare SFN8522 2p 10Gbit/s currently > without Onload enabled. > it has 17.5K http_request_rate and ~26% server interrupts on core 0 and 1 > where the NIC IRQ is bound to. > > And I have a similar node with Intel X710 2p 10Gbit/s. > It has 26.1K http_request_rate and ~26% server interrupts on core 0 and 1 > where the NIC IRQ is bound to. > > both nodes have 1 socket, Intel Xeon CPU E3-1280 v6, 32 GB RAM.
In both cases this is very low performance. We're getting 245k req/s and 90k connections/s oon a somewhat comparable Core i7-4790K on small objects and are easily saturating 2 10G NICs with medium sized objects. The problem I'm seeing is that if your cable is not saturated, you're supposed to be running at a higher request rate, and if it's saturated you should not observe the slightest difference between the two tests. In fact what I'm suspecting is that you're running with ~45kB objects and that your intel NIC managed to reach the line rate, and that in the same test the SFN8522 cannot even reach it. Am I wrong ? If so, from what I remember from the 40G tests 2 years ago, you should be able to get close to 35-40G with such object sizes. Oh just one thing : verify that you're not running with jumbo frames on the solarflare case. Jumbo frames used to help *a lot* 10 years ago when they were saving interrupt processing time. Nowadays they instead hurt a lot because allocating 9kB of contiguous memory at once for a packet is much more difficult than allocating only 1.5kB. Honnestly I don't remember having seen a single case over the last 5+ years where running with jumbo frames would permit to reach the same performance as no jumbo. GSO+GRO have helped a lot there as well! Cheers, Willy
