Thanks for catching the problem.  Here is the output you asked for.

# cat /proc/net/packet
sk       RefCnt Type Proto  Iface R Rmem   User   Inode
ffff8800d8a2d800 3      3    0003   4     1 0      0      10933 

It's strange that both ports can support T1000/Full according to the output 
of "ethtool eth0", "ethtool eth1", but they negotiated to be 100Mbps.  Need 
to figure out why.

Thanks again!


On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 5:08:26 PM UTC-5, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
> On 06/09/2015 12:01 AM, Perf Tech wrote: 
> > Thanks for the suggestion. Here is the output of ifpps.   It shows the 
> > kernel.  I didn't do any tunning on this system. 
>
> Ok, I thought you were talking about 1G, but your link is just 100Mbit. 
> Do you have anything running in the background of your system that is 
> listening on a packet socket? 
>
> cat /proc/net/packet 
>
> >    3.16.0-23-generic, x86_64, eth0 (e1000e 100Mbit/s link:yes), 
> t=1000ms, 
> > cpus=4/ 
> > 4 
> >    rx:            0.000 MiB/t          0 pkts/t          0 drops/t 
> >   0 err 
> >    tx:            9.446 MiB/t     128636 pkts/t          0 drops/t 
> >   0 err 
> > ors/t 
> >    rx:            0.000 MiB            0 pkts            0 drops 
> >   0 err 
> > ortx:          883.624 MiB     12033079 pkts            0 drops 
> >   0 err 
> > ors 
> >    sys:             726 cs/t         143 procs           5 running 
> >   0 iow 
> > ait 
> >    mem:           3833M total       568M used         348M active 
> >   121M ina 
> > ctswap:          3971M total         0M used           0M cached 
> > 
> >    cpu3 +:         6.9% usr/t      93.1% sys/t        0.0% idl/t 
> > 0.0% iow 
> > /tcpu1 |:         5.0% usr/t      95.0% sys/t        0.0% idl/t 
> > 0.0% iow 
> > /tcpu0 |:         5.3% usr/t      94.7% sys/t        0.0% idl/t 
> > 0.0% iow 
> > /tcpu2 -:         5.1% usr/t      94.9% sys/t        0.0% idl/t 
> > 0.0% iow 
> > /tavg:            5.4%            94.6%              0.0%               
> 0.0% 
> > 
> >    cpu0 +:         4012 irqs/t              4012 sirq rx/t             
>  4012 
> > sirq 
> >   tcpu3 |:            0 irqs/t                 1 sirq rx/t               
>   0 
> > sir 
> > 
> > 
> > On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 4:55:07 PM UTC-5, Daniel Borkmann wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 06/08/2015 11:46 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: 
> >>> On 06/06/2015 01:05 AM, Perf Tech wrote: 
> >>>> I have a PC with  3 NICs (eth0 is Intel 82579LM NIC, eth1 is 82574L), 
> >> OS is 
> >>>> ubuntu 12.04 server. 
> >>>> I connected eth0 and eth1 with a ethernet cable and both ports are 
> up. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Trying to find out how fast trafgen(0.5.9-rc4) can send packets on 
> this 
> >>>> system. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> # ./trafgen --dev eth0 --conf tmp2.txt  --cpp 
> >>>>        4 packets to schedule 
> >>>>      292 bytes in total 
> >>>> Running! Hang up with ^C! 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> I am monitoring "ifconfig eth0" with a monitoring program that I have 
> >> used 
> >> 
> >> There's a tool in the netsniff-ng repo called ifpps, you might also 
> want 
> >> to 
> >> check that out. 
> >> 
> >>>> many years, the issue is,  trafgen is only sending 
> >>>> pcap at a rate 129000 packets/sec with data rate of 79Mbps.   I had 
> >>>> expected it to be a long higher. 
> >>> 
> >>> What kernel and NIC driver do you use? Did you do any particular 
> tuning 
> >>> settings? 
> >>> 
> >>> E.g. a starting point could be: 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> http://netoptimizer.blogspot.ch/2014/09/network-setup-for-accurate-nanosec.html
>  
> >>> 
> >>> Also, if your config uses checksumming, it's done in trafgen in 
> >> software, 
> >>> so if you want to test a simple minimal config, you could use a static 
> >> buffer 
> >>> as a start. 
> >>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Did I run the command wrong? 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Thanks 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"netsniff-ng" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to