Re: [Bloat] Recommendations for fq_codel and tso/gso in 2017

2017-01-26 Thread Dave Täht 


On 1/26/17 11:21 PM, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote:
> Hi
> 
> After having had some issues with inconcistent tso/gso configuration
> causing performance issues for sch_fq with pacing in one of my systems,
> I wonder if is it still recommended to disable gso/tso for interfaces
> used with fq_codel qdiscs and shaping using HTB etc. 

At lower bandwidths gro can do terrible things. Say you have a 1Mbit
uplink, and IW10. (At least one device (mvneta) will synthesise 64k of
gro packets)

a single IW10 burst from one flow injects 130ms of latency.

> 
> If there is a trade off, at which bandwith does it generally make more
> sense to enable tso/gso than to have it disabled when doing HTB shaped
> fq_codel qdiscs?

I stopped caring about tuning params at > 40Mbit. < 10 gbit, or rather,
trying get below 200usec of jitter|latency. (Others care)

And: My expectation was generally that people would ignore our
recommendations on disabling offloads!

Yes, we should revise the sample sqm code and recommendations for a post
gigabit era to not bother with changing network offloads. Were you
modifying the old debloat script?

TBF & sch_Cake do peeling of gro/tso/gso back into packets, and then
interleave their scheduling, so GRO is both helpful (transiting the
stack faster) and harmless, at all bandwidths.

HTB doesn't peel. We just ripped out hsfc for sqm-scripts (too buggy),
alsp. Leaving: tbf + fq_codel, htb+fq_codel, and cake models there.

...

Cake is coming along nicely. I'd love a test in your 2Gbit bonding
scenario, particularly in a per host fairness test, at line or shaped
rates. We recently got cake working well with nat.

http://blog.cerowrt.org/flent/steam/down_working.svg (ignore the latency
figure, the 6 flows were to spots all over the world)

> Regards,
> Hans-Kristian
> 
> 
> ___
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
> 
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

[Bloat] Recommendations for fq_codel and tso/gso in 2017

2017-01-26 Thread Hans-Kristian Bakke 
Hi

After having had some issues with inconcistent tso/gso configuration
causing performance issues for sch_fq with pacing in one of my systems, I
wonder if is it still recommended to disable gso/tso for interfaces used
with fq_codel qdiscs and shaping using HTB etc.

If there is a trade off, at which bandwith does it generally make more
sense to enable tso/gso than to have it disabled when doing HTB shaped
fq_codel qdiscs?

Regards,
Hans-Kristian
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] Excessive throttling with fq

2017-01-26 Thread Eric Dumazet 
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 22:20 +0100, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote:
> Wow, that was it (after seeing your previous mail I disabled and
> reenabled tso and gso on all eth0, eth1 AND bond0 to reset all to the
> same state and it cleared up all the issues.
> 
> 
> In other words my issue was that my physical nics eth0 and eth1 had
> gso/tso enabled but my bond0 interface gso/tso disabled which
> everything else but fq with pacing did not seem to care about.
> 
> 
> The reason why is probably from my traffic shaper script in previous
> experiments the last couple of days.
> I actually think my gateway may have the same latent issue for fq with
> pacing as my HTB + fq_codel WAN traffic shaper script is automatically
> disabling tso and gso on the shaped interface, which in my case is
> bond0.12 (bonding AND VLANs) while the underlying physical interfaces
> still have tso and gso enabled as the script does not know that the
> interface happens to be bound to one or more layers of interfaces
> below that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the difference in the ethtool -k output between the
> non-working fq pacing settings and the working version.
> 
> 
> diff ethtool_k_bond0.txt ethtool_k_bond0-2.txt
> 13c13
> <   tx-tcp-segmentation: off
> ---
> >   tx-tcp-segmentation: on
> 15c15
> <   tx-tcp-mangleid-segmentation: off [requested on]
> ---
> >   tx-tcp-mangleid-segmentation: on
> 
> 
> Thank you for pointing me in the right direction! I don't know is this
> is a "wont-fix" issue because of non-logical user configuration or if
> it should be looked into to be handled better in the future.
> 
> 

non TSO devices are supported, but we would generally install FQ on the
bonding device, and let TSO enabled on the bonding.

This is because setting timers is expensive, and our design choices for
pacing tried hard to avoid setting timers for every 2 packets sent (as
in 1-MSS packets) ;)

( https://lwn.net/Articles/564978/ )

Of course this does not really matter for slow links (Like 10Mbit or
100Mbit NIC)
> 
> 
> On 26 January 2017 at 22:07, Eric Dumazet 
> wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 22:02 +0100, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote:
> > It seems like it is not:
> >
> 
> It really should ;)
> 
> This is normally the default. Do you know why it is off ?
> 
> ethtool -K bond0 tso on
> 
> 
> >
> > Features for bond0:
> > rx-checksumming: off [fixed]
> > tx-checksumming: on
> > tx-checksum-ipv4: off [fixed]
> > tx-checksum-ip-generic: on
> > tx-checksum-ipv6: off [fixed]
> > tx-checksum-fcoe-crc: off [fixed]
> > tx-checksum-sctp: off [fixed]
> > scatter-gather: on
> > tx-scatter-gather: on
> > tx-scatter-gather-fraglist: off [requested on]
> > tcp-segmentation-offload: on
> > tx-tcp-segmentation: off
> > tx-tcp-ecn-segmentation: on
> > tx-tcp-mangleid-segmentation: off [requested on]
> > tx-tcp6-segmentation: on
> > udp-fragmentation-offload: off [fixed]
> > generic-segmentation-offload: on
> > generic-receive-offload: on
> > large-receive-offload: off
> > rx-vlan-offload: on
> > tx-vlan-offload: on
> > ntuple-filters: off [fixed]
> > receive-hashing: off [fixed]
> > highdma: on
> > rx-vlan-filter: on
> > vlan-challenged: off [fixed]
> > tx-lockless: on [fixed]
> > netns-local: on [fixed]
> > tx-gso-robust: off [fixed]
> > tx-fcoe-segmentation: off [fixed]
> > tx-gre-segmentation: on
> > tx-gre-csum-segmentation: on
> > tx-ipxip4-segmentation: on
> > tx-ipxip6-segmentation: on
> > tx-udp_tnl-segmentation: on
> > tx-udp_tnl-csum-segmentation: on
> > tx-gso-partial: off [fixed]
> > tx-sctp-segmentation: off [fixed]
> > fcoe-mtu: off [fixed]
> > tx-nocache-copy: off
> > loopback: off [fixed]
> > rx-fcs: off [fixed]
> > rx-all: off [fixed]
> > tx-vlan-stag-hw-insert: off [fixed]
> > rx-vlan-stag-hw-parse: off [fixed]
> > rx-vlan-stag-filter: off [fixed]
> > l2-fwd-offload: off [fixed]
> > busy-poll: off [fixed]
> > hw-tc-offload: off [fixed]
> >
> >
> >
> > On 26 January 2017 at 22:00, Eric Dumazet
> 
> > wrote:
> > For some reason, even though this NIC advertises TSO
> support,
> > tcpdump clearly shows TSO is not used at all.
> >
> > Oh wait, maybe TSO is not enabled on the bonding
> device ?
> >
> > On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 21:46 +0100, Hans-Kristian
> Bakke wrote:
> > > # ethtool -i eth0
> > > driver: e1000e
> >

Re: [Bloat] Excessive throttling with fq

2017-01-26 Thread Eric Dumazet 
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 22:02 +0100, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote:
> It seems like it is not:
> 

It really should ;)

This is normally the default. Do you know why it is off ?

ethtool -K bond0 tso on


> 
> Features for bond0:
> rx-checksumming: off [fixed]
> tx-checksumming: on
> tx-checksum-ipv4: off [fixed]
> tx-checksum-ip-generic: on
> tx-checksum-ipv6: off [fixed]
> tx-checksum-fcoe-crc: off [fixed]
> tx-checksum-sctp: off [fixed]
> scatter-gather: on
> tx-scatter-gather: on
> tx-scatter-gather-fraglist: off [requested on]
> tcp-segmentation-offload: on
> tx-tcp-segmentation: off
> tx-tcp-ecn-segmentation: on
> tx-tcp-mangleid-segmentation: off [requested on]
> tx-tcp6-segmentation: on
> udp-fragmentation-offload: off [fixed]
> generic-segmentation-offload: on
> generic-receive-offload: on
> large-receive-offload: off
> rx-vlan-offload: on
> tx-vlan-offload: on
> ntuple-filters: off [fixed]
> receive-hashing: off [fixed]
> highdma: on
> rx-vlan-filter: on
> vlan-challenged: off [fixed]
> tx-lockless: on [fixed]
> netns-local: on [fixed]
> tx-gso-robust: off [fixed]
> tx-fcoe-segmentation: off [fixed]
> tx-gre-segmentation: on
> tx-gre-csum-segmentation: on
> tx-ipxip4-segmentation: on
> tx-ipxip6-segmentation: on
> tx-udp_tnl-segmentation: on
> tx-udp_tnl-csum-segmentation: on
> tx-gso-partial: off [fixed]
> tx-sctp-segmentation: off [fixed]
> fcoe-mtu: off [fixed]
> tx-nocache-copy: off
> loopback: off [fixed]
> rx-fcs: off [fixed]
> rx-all: off [fixed]
> tx-vlan-stag-hw-insert: off [fixed]
> rx-vlan-stag-hw-parse: off [fixed]
> rx-vlan-stag-filter: off [fixed]
> l2-fwd-offload: off [fixed]
> busy-poll: off [fixed]
> hw-tc-offload: off [fixed]
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 January 2017 at 22:00, Eric Dumazet 
> wrote:
> For some reason, even though this NIC advertises TSO support,
> tcpdump clearly shows TSO is not used at all.
> 
> Oh wait, maybe TSO is not enabled on the bonding device ?
> 
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 21:46 +0100, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote:
> > # ethtool -i eth0
> > driver: e1000e
> > version: 3.2.6-k
> > firmware-version: 1.9-0
> > expansion-rom-version:
> > bus-info: :04:00.0
> > supports-statistics: yes
> > supports-test: yes
> > supports-eeprom-access: yes
> > supports-register-dump: yes
> > supports-priv-flags: no
> >
> >
> > # ethtool -k eth0
> > Features for eth0:
> > rx-checksumming: on
> > tx-checksumming: on
> > tx-checksum-ipv4: off [fixed]
> > tx-checksum-ip-generic: on
> > tx-checksum-ipv6: off [fixed]
> > tx-checksum-fcoe-crc: off [fixed]
> > tx-checksum-sctp: off [fixed]
> > scatter-gather: on
> > tx-scatter-gather: on
> > tx-scatter-gather-fraglist: off [fixed]
> > tcp-segmentation-offload: on
> > tx-tcp-segmentation: on
> > tx-tcp-ecn-segmentation: off [fixed]
> > tx-tcp-mangleid-segmentation: on
> > tx-tcp6-segmentation: on
> > udp-fragmentation-offload: off [fixed]
> > generic-segmentation-offload: on
> > generic-receive-offload: on
> > large-receive-offload: off [fixed]
> > rx-vlan-offload: on
> > tx-vlan-offload: on
> > ntuple-filters: off [fixed]
> > receive-hashing: on
> > highdma: on [fixed]
> > rx-vlan-filter: on [fixed]
> > vlan-challenged: off [fixed]
> > tx-lockless: off [fixed]
> > netns-local: off [fixed]
> > tx-gso-robust: off [fixed]
> > tx-fcoe-segmentation: off [fixed]
> > tx-gre-segmentation: off [fixed]
> > tx-gre-csum-segmentation: off [fixed]
> > tx-ipxip4-segmentation: off [fixed]
> > tx-ipxip6-segmentation: off [fixed]
> > tx-udp_tnl-segmentation: off [fixed]
> > tx-udp_tnl-csum-segmentation: off [fixed]
> > tx-gso-partial: off [fixed]
> > tx-sctp-segmentation: off [fixed]
> > fcoe-mtu: off [fixed]
> > tx-nocache-copy: off
> > loopback: off [fixed]
> > rx-fcs: off
> > rx-all: off
> > tx-vlan-stag-hw-insert: off [fixed]
> > rx-vlan-stag-hw-parse: off [fixed]
> > rx-vlan-stag-filter: off [fixed]
> > l2-fwd-offload: off [fixed]
> > busy-poll: off [fixed]
> > hw-tc-offload: off [fixed]
> >
> >
> > # grep HZ /boot/config-4.8.0-2-amd64
> > CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON=y
> > # CONFIG_HZ_PERIODIC is not set
> > CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE=y
> > # CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is not set
> > # CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set
> > # CONFIG_HZ_100 is not set
> > CONFIG_HZ_250=y
> > # CONFIG_HZ_300 is not set
> > # CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set
> > CONFIG_HZ=250
> > CONFIG_MACHZ_WDT=m
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [Bloat] Excessive throttling with fq

2017-01-26 Thread Eric Dumazet 
For some reason, even though this NIC advertises TSO support,
tcpdump clearly shows TSO is not used at all.

Oh wait, maybe TSO is not enabled on the bonding device ?

On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 21:46 +0100, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote:
> # ethtool -i eth0
> driver: e1000e
> version: 3.2.6-k
> firmware-version: 1.9-0
> expansion-rom-version:
> bus-info: :04:00.0
> supports-statistics: yes
> supports-test: yes
> supports-eeprom-access: yes
> supports-register-dump: yes
> supports-priv-flags: no
> 
> 
> # ethtool -k eth0
> Features for eth0:
> rx-checksumming: on
> tx-checksumming: on
> tx-checksum-ipv4: off [fixed]
> tx-checksum-ip-generic: on
> tx-checksum-ipv6: off [fixed]
> tx-checksum-fcoe-crc: off [fixed]
> tx-checksum-sctp: off [fixed]
> scatter-gather: on
> tx-scatter-gather: on
> tx-scatter-gather-fraglist: off [fixed]
> tcp-segmentation-offload: on
> tx-tcp-segmentation: on
> tx-tcp-ecn-segmentation: off [fixed]
> tx-tcp-mangleid-segmentation: on
> tx-tcp6-segmentation: on
> udp-fragmentation-offload: off [fixed]
> generic-segmentation-offload: on
> generic-receive-offload: on
> large-receive-offload: off [fixed]
> rx-vlan-offload: on
> tx-vlan-offload: on
> ntuple-filters: off [fixed]
> receive-hashing: on
> highdma: on [fixed]
> rx-vlan-filter: on [fixed]
> vlan-challenged: off [fixed]
> tx-lockless: off [fixed]
> netns-local: off [fixed]
> tx-gso-robust: off [fixed]
> tx-fcoe-segmentation: off [fixed]
> tx-gre-segmentation: off [fixed]
> tx-gre-csum-segmentation: off [fixed]
> tx-ipxip4-segmentation: off [fixed]
> tx-ipxip6-segmentation: off [fixed]
> tx-udp_tnl-segmentation: off [fixed]
> tx-udp_tnl-csum-segmentation: off [fixed]
> tx-gso-partial: off [fixed]
> tx-sctp-segmentation: off [fixed]
> fcoe-mtu: off [fixed]
> tx-nocache-copy: off
> loopback: off [fixed]
> rx-fcs: off
> rx-all: off
> tx-vlan-stag-hw-insert: off [fixed]
> rx-vlan-stag-hw-parse: off [fixed]
> rx-vlan-stag-filter: off [fixed]
> l2-fwd-offload: off [fixed]
> busy-poll: off [fixed]
> hw-tc-offload: off [fixed]
> 
> 
> # grep HZ /boot/config-4.8.0-2-amd64
> CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON=y
> # CONFIG_HZ_PERIODIC is not set
> CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE=y
> # CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is not set
> # CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set
> # CONFIG_HZ_100 is not set
> CONFIG_HZ_250=y
> # CONFIG_HZ_300 is not set
> # CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set
> CONFIG_HZ=250
> CONFIG_MACHZ_WDT=m
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 January 2017 at 21:41, Eric Dumazet 
> wrote:
> 
> Can you post :
> 
> ethtool -i eth0
> ethtool -k eth0
> 
> grep HZ /boot/config (what is the HZ value of your kernel)
> 
> I suspect a possible problem with TSO autodefer when/if HZ <
> 1000
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 21:19 +0100, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote:
> > There are two packet captures from fq with and without
> pacing here:
> >
> >
> > https://owncloud.proikt.com/index.php/s/KuXIl8h8bSFH1fM
> >
> >
> >
> > The server (with fq pacing/nopacing) is 10.0.5.10 and is
> running a
> > Apache2 webserver at port tcp port 443. The tcp client is
> nginx
> > reverse proxy at 10.0.5.13 on the same subnet which again is
> proxying
> > the connection from the Windows 10 client.
> > - I did try to connect directly to the server with the
> client (via a
> > linux gateway router) avoiding the nginx proxy and just
> using plain
> > no-ssl http. That did not change anything.
> > - I also tried stopping the eth0 interface to force the
> traffic to the
> > eth1 interface in the LACP which changed nothing.
> > - I also pulled each of the cable on the switch to force the
> traffic
> > to switch between interfaces in the LACP link between the
> client
> > switch and the server switch.
> >
> >
> > The CPU is a 5-6 year old Intel Xeon X3430 CPU @ 4x2.40GHz
> on a
> > SuperMicro platform. It is not very loaded and the results
> are always
> > in the same ballpark with fq pacing on.
> >
> >
> >
> > top - 21:12:38 up 12 days, 11:08,  4 users,  load average:
> 0.56, 0.68,
> > 0.77
> > Tasks: 1344 total,   1 running, 1343 sleeping,   0
> stopped,   0 zombie
> > %Cpu0  :  0.0 us,  1.0 sy,  0.0 ni, 99.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0
> hi,  0.0
> > si,  0.0 st
> > %Cpu1  :  0.0 us,  0.3 sy,  0.0 ni, 97.4 id,  2.0 wa,  0.0
> hi,  0.3
> > si,  0.0 st
> > %Cpu2  :  0.0 us,  2.0 sy,  0.0 ni, 96.4 id,  1.3 wa,  0.0
> hi,  0.3
> > si,  0.0 st
> > %Cpu3  :  0.7 us,  2.3 sy,  0.0 ni, 94.1 id,  3.0 wa,  0.0
> hi,  0.0
> > si,  0.0 st
> > KiB Mem : 16427572 total,   173712 free,  9739976

Re: [Bloat] Excessive throttling with fq

2017-01-26 Thread Hans-Kristian Bakke 
The receiver (as in the nginx proxy in the dumps) is actually running fq
qdisc with BBR on kernel 4.9. Could that explain what you are seeing?

Changing it to cubic does not change the resulting throughput though, and
it also was not involved at all in the Windows 10 -> linux router -> Apache
server tests which also gives the same 23-ish MB/s with pacing.


On 26 January 2017 at 21:54, Eric Dumazet  wrote:

> It looks like the receiver is seriously limiting receive window in the
> "pacing" case.
>
> Only after 30 Mbytes are transfered, it finally increases it, from
> 359168 to 1328192
>
> DRS is not working as expected. Again maybe related to HZ value.
>
>
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 21:19 +0100, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote:
> > There are two packet captures from fq with and without pacing here:
> >
> >
> > https://owncloud.proikt.com/index.php/s/KuXIl8h8bSFH1fM
> >
> >
> >
> > The server (with fq pacing/nopacing) is 10.0.5.10 and is running a
> > Apache2 webserver at port tcp port 443. The tcp client is nginx
> > reverse proxy at 10.0.5.13 on the same subnet which again is proxying
> > the connection from the Windows 10 client.
> > - I did try to connect directly to the server with the client (via a
> > linux gateway router) avoiding the nginx proxy and just using plain
> > no-ssl http. That did not change anything.
> > - I also tried stopping the eth0 interface to force the traffic to the
> > eth1 interface in the LACP which changed nothing.
> > - I also pulled each of the cable on the switch to force the traffic
> > to switch between interfaces in the LACP link between the client
> > switch and the server switch.
> >
> >
> > The CPU is a 5-6 year old Intel Xeon X3430 CPU @ 4x2.40GHz on a
> > SuperMicro platform. It is not very loaded and the results are always
> > in the same ballpark with fq pacing on.
> >
> >
> >
> > top - 21:12:38 up 12 days, 11:08,  4 users,  load average: 0.56, 0.68,
> > 0.77
> > Tasks: 1344 total,   1 running, 1343 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
> > %Cpu0  :  0.0 us,  1.0 sy,  0.0 ni, 99.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0
> > si,  0.0 st
> > %Cpu1  :  0.0 us,  0.3 sy,  0.0 ni, 97.4 id,  2.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.3
> > si,  0.0 st
> > %Cpu2  :  0.0 us,  2.0 sy,  0.0 ni, 96.4 id,  1.3 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.3
> > si,  0.0 st
> > %Cpu3  :  0.7 us,  2.3 sy,  0.0 ni, 94.1 id,  3.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0
> > si,  0.0 st
> > KiB Mem : 16427572 total,   173712 free,  9739976 used,  6513884
> > buff/cache
> > KiB Swap:  6369276 total,  6126736 free,   242540 used.  6224836 avail
> > Mem
> >
> >
> > This seems OK to me. It does have 24 drives in 3 ZFS pools at 144TB
> > raw storage in total with several SAS HBAs that is pretty much always
> > poking the system in some way or the other.
> >
> >
> > There are around 32K interrupts when running @23 MB/s (as seen in
> > chrome downloads) with pacing on and about 25K interrupts when running
> > @105 MB/s with fq nopacing. Is that normal?
> >
> >
> > Hans-Kristian
> >
> >
> >
> > On 26 January 2017 at 20:58, David Lang  wrote:
> > Is there any CPU bottleneck?
> >
> > pacing causing this sort of problem makes me thing that the
> > CPU either can't keep up or that something (Hz setting type of
> > thing) is delaying when the CPU can get used.
> >
> > It's not clear from the posts if the problem is with sending
> > data or receiving data.
> >
> > David Lang
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Jan 2017, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > Nothing jumps on my head.
> >
> > We use FQ on links varying from 1Gbit to 100Gbit, and
> > we have no such
> > issues.
> >
> > You could probably check on the server the TCP various
> > infos given by ss
> > command
> >
> >
> > ss -temoi dst 
> >
> >
> > pacing rate is shown. You might have some issues, but
> > it is hard to say.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 19:55 +0100, Hans-Kristian Bakke
> > wrote:
> > After some more testing I see that if I
> > disable fq pacing the
> > performance is restored to the expected
> > levels: # for i in eth0 eth1; do tc qdisc
> > replace dev $i root fq nopacing;
> > done
> >
> >
> > Is this expected behaviour? There is some
> > background traffic, but only
> > in the sub 100 mbit/s on the switches and
> > gateway between the server
> > and client.
> >
> >
> > The chain:
> > Windows 10 client -> 1000 mbit/s -> switch ->
> > 2xgigabit LACP -> switch
> > -> 4 x gigabit LACP -> gw

Re: [Bloat] Excessive throttling with fq

2017-01-26 Thread Eric Dumazet 
It looks like the receiver is seriously limiting receive window in the
"pacing" case.

Only after 30 Mbytes are transfered, it finally increases it, from
359168 to 1328192

DRS is not working as expected. Again maybe related to HZ value.


On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 21:19 +0100, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote:
> There are two packet captures from fq with and without pacing here:
> 
> 
> https://owncloud.proikt.com/index.php/s/KuXIl8h8bSFH1fM
> 
> 
> 
> The server (with fq pacing/nopacing) is 10.0.5.10 and is running a
> Apache2 webserver at port tcp port 443. The tcp client is nginx
> reverse proxy at 10.0.5.13 on the same subnet which again is proxying
> the connection from the Windows 10 client. 
> - I did try to connect directly to the server with the client (via a
> linux gateway router) avoiding the nginx proxy and just using plain
> no-ssl http. That did not change anything. 
> - I also tried stopping the eth0 interface to force the traffic to the
> eth1 interface in the LACP which changed nothing.
> - I also pulled each of the cable on the switch to force the traffic
> to switch between interfaces in the LACP link between the client
> switch and the server switch.
> 
> 
> The CPU is a 5-6 year old Intel Xeon X3430 CPU @ 4x2.40GHz on a
> SuperMicro platform. It is not very loaded and the results are always
> in the same ballpark with fq pacing on. 
> 
> 
> 
> top - 21:12:38 up 12 days, 11:08,  4 users,  load average: 0.56, 0.68,
> 0.77
> Tasks: 1344 total,   1 running, 1343 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
> %Cpu0  :  0.0 us,  1.0 sy,  0.0 ni, 99.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0
> si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu1  :  0.0 us,  0.3 sy,  0.0 ni, 97.4 id,  2.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.3
> si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu2  :  0.0 us,  2.0 sy,  0.0 ni, 96.4 id,  1.3 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.3
> si,  0.0 st
> %Cpu3  :  0.7 us,  2.3 sy,  0.0 ni, 94.1 id,  3.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0
> si,  0.0 st
> KiB Mem : 16427572 total,   173712 free,  9739976 used,  6513884
> buff/cache
> KiB Swap:  6369276 total,  6126736 free,   242540 used.  6224836 avail
> Mem
> 
> 
> This seems OK to me. It does have 24 drives in 3 ZFS pools at 144TB
> raw storage in total with several SAS HBAs that is pretty much always
> poking the system in some way or the other.
> 
> 
> There are around 32K interrupts when running @23 MB/s (as seen in
> chrome downloads) with pacing on and about 25K interrupts when running
> @105 MB/s with fq nopacing. Is that normal?
> 
> 
> Hans-Kristian
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 January 2017 at 20:58, David Lang  wrote:
> Is there any CPU bottleneck?
> 
> pacing causing this sort of problem makes me thing that the
> CPU either can't keep up or that something (Hz setting type of
> thing) is delaying when the CPU can get used.
> 
> It's not clear from the posts if the problem is with sending
> data or receiving data.
> 
> David Lang
> 
> 
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2017, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> Nothing jumps on my head.
> 
> We use FQ on links varying from 1Gbit to 100Gbit, and
> we have no such
> issues.
> 
> You could probably check on the server the TCP various
> infos given by ss
> command
> 
> 
> ss -temoi dst 
> 
> 
> pacing rate is shown. You might have some issues, but
> it is hard to say.
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 19:55 +0100, Hans-Kristian Bakke
> wrote:
> After some more testing I see that if I
> disable fq pacing the
> performance is restored to the expected
> levels: # for i in eth0 eth1; do tc qdisc
> replace dev $i root fq nopacing;
> done
> 
> 
> Is this expected behaviour? There is some
> background traffic, but only
> in the sub 100 mbit/s on the switches and
> gateway between the server
> and client.
> 
> 
> The chain:
> Windows 10 client -> 1000 mbit/s -> switch ->
> 2xgigabit LACP -> switch
> -> 4 x gigabit LACP -> gw (fq_codel on all
> nics) -> 4 x gigabit LACP
> (the same as in) -> switch -> 2 x lacp ->
> server (with misbehaving fq
> pacing)
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 January 2017 at 19:38,

Re: [Bloat] Excessive throttling with fq

2017-01-26 Thread Hans-Kristian Bakke 
# ethtool -i eth0
driver: e1000e
version: 3.2.6-k
firmware-version: 1.9-0
expansion-rom-version:
bus-info: :04:00.0
supports-statistics: yes
supports-test: yes
supports-eeprom-access: yes
supports-register-dump: yes
supports-priv-flags: no

# ethtool -k eth0
Features for eth0:
rx-checksumming: on
tx-checksumming: on
tx-checksum-ipv4: off [fixed]
tx-checksum-ip-generic: on
tx-checksum-ipv6: off [fixed]
tx-checksum-fcoe-crc: off [fixed]
tx-checksum-sctp: off [fixed]
scatter-gather: on
tx-scatter-gather: on
tx-scatter-gather-fraglist: off [fixed]
tcp-segmentation-offload: on
tx-tcp-segmentation: on
tx-tcp-ecn-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-tcp-mangleid-segmentation: on
tx-tcp6-segmentation: on
udp-fragmentation-offload: off [fixed]
generic-segmentation-offload: on
generic-receive-offload: on
large-receive-offload: off [fixed]
rx-vlan-offload: on
tx-vlan-offload: on
ntuple-filters: off [fixed]
receive-hashing: on
highdma: on [fixed]
rx-vlan-filter: on [fixed]
vlan-challenged: off [fixed]
tx-lockless: off [fixed]
netns-local: off [fixed]
tx-gso-robust: off [fixed]
tx-fcoe-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-gre-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-gre-csum-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-ipxip4-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-ipxip6-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-udp_tnl-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-udp_tnl-csum-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-gso-partial: off [fixed]
tx-sctp-segmentation: off [fixed]
fcoe-mtu: off [fixed]
tx-nocache-copy: off
loopback: off [fixed]
rx-fcs: off
rx-all: off
tx-vlan-stag-hw-insert: off [fixed]
rx-vlan-stag-hw-parse: off [fixed]
rx-vlan-stag-filter: off [fixed]
l2-fwd-offload: off [fixed]
busy-poll: off [fixed]
hw-tc-offload: off [fixed]

# grep HZ /boot/config-4.8.0-2-amd64
CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON=y
# CONFIG_HZ_PERIODIC is not set
CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE=y
# CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is not set
# CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set
# CONFIG_HZ_100 is not set
CONFIG_HZ_250=y
# CONFIG_HZ_300 is not set
# CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set
CONFIG_HZ=250
CONFIG_MACHZ_WDT=m


On 26 January 2017 at 21:41, Eric Dumazet  wrote:

>
> Can you post :
>
> ethtool -i eth0
> ethtool -k eth0
>
> grep HZ /boot/config (what is the HZ value of your kernel)
>
> I suspect a possible problem with TSO autodefer when/if HZ < 1000
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 21:19 +0100, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote:
> > There are two packet captures from fq with and without pacing here:
> >
> >
> > https://owncloud.proikt.com/index.php/s/KuXIl8h8bSFH1fM
> >
> >
> >
> > The server (with fq pacing/nopacing) is 10.0.5.10 and is running a
> > Apache2 webserver at port tcp port 443. The tcp client is nginx
> > reverse proxy at 10.0.5.13 on the same subnet which again is proxying
> > the connection from the Windows 10 client.
> > - I did try to connect directly to the server with the client (via a
> > linux gateway router) avoiding the nginx proxy and just using plain
> > no-ssl http. That did not change anything.
> > - I also tried stopping the eth0 interface to force the traffic to the
> > eth1 interface in the LACP which changed nothing.
> > - I also pulled each of the cable on the switch to force the traffic
> > to switch between interfaces in the LACP link between the client
> > switch and the server switch.
> >
> >
> > The CPU is a 5-6 year old Intel Xeon X3430 CPU @ 4x2.40GHz on a
> > SuperMicro platform. It is not very loaded and the results are always
> > in the same ballpark with fq pacing on.
> >
> >
> >
> > top - 21:12:38 up 12 days, 11:08,  4 users,  load average: 0.56, 0.68,
> > 0.77
> > Tasks: 1344 total,   1 running, 1343 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
> > %Cpu0  :  0.0 us,  1.0 sy,  0.0 ni, 99.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0
> > si,  0.0 st
> > %Cpu1  :  0.0 us,  0.3 sy,  0.0 ni, 97.4 id,  2.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.3
> > si,  0.0 st
> > %Cpu2  :  0.0 us,  2.0 sy,  0.0 ni, 96.4 id,  1.3 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.3
> > si,  0.0 st
> > %Cpu3  :  0.7 us,  2.3 sy,  0.0 ni, 94.1 id,  3.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0
> > si,  0.0 st
> > KiB Mem : 16427572 total,   173712 free,  9739976 used,  6513884
> > buff/cache
> > KiB Swap:  6369276 total,  6126736 free,   242540 used.  6224836 avail
> > Mem
> >
> >
> > This seems OK to me. It does have 24 drives in 3 ZFS pools at 144TB
> > raw storage in total with several SAS HBAs that is pretty much always
> > poking the system in some way or the other.
> >
> >
> > There are around 32K interrupts when running @23 MB/s (as seen in
> > chrome downloads) with pacing on and about 25K interrupts when running
> > @105 MB/s with fq nopacing. Is that normal?
> >
> >
> > Hans-Kristian
> >
> >
> >
> > On 26 January 2017 at 20:58, David Lang  wrote:
> > Is there any CPU bottleneck?
> >
> > pacing causing this sort of problem makes me thing that the
> > CPU either can't keep up or that something (Hz setting type of
> > thing) is delaying when the CPU can get used.
> >
> > It's not clear from the posts if the problem is with sending
> > data or receiving data.
> >
> >

Re: [Bloat] Excessive throttling with fq

2017-01-26 Thread Hans-Kristian Bakke 
There are two packet captures from fq with and without pacing here:

https://owncloud.proikt.com/index.php/s/KuXIl8h8bSFH1fM

The server (with fq pacing/nopacing) is 10.0.5.10 and is running a Apache2
webserver at port tcp port 443. The tcp client is nginx reverse proxy at
10.0.5.13 on the same subnet which again is proxying the connection from
the Windows 10 client.
- I did try to connect directly to the server with the client (via a linux
gateway router) avoiding the nginx proxy and just using plain no-ssl http.
That did not change anything.
- I also tried stopping the eth0 interface to force the traffic to the eth1
interface in the LACP which changed nothing.
- I also pulled each of the cable on the switch to force the traffic to
switch between interfaces in the LACP link between the client switch and
the server switch.

The CPU is a 5-6 year old Intel Xeon X3430 CPU @ 4x2.40GHz on a SuperMicro
platform. It is not very loaded and the results are always in the same
ballpark with fq pacing on.

top - 21:12:38 up 12 days, 11:08,  4 users,  load average: 0.56, 0.68, 0.77
Tasks: 1344 total,   1 running, 1343 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
%Cpu0  :  0.0 us,  1.0 sy,  0.0 ni, 99.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,
 0.0 st
%Cpu1  :  0.0 us,  0.3 sy,  0.0 ni, 97.4 id,  2.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.3 si,
 0.0 st
%Cpu2  :  0.0 us,  2.0 sy,  0.0 ni, 96.4 id,  1.3 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.3 si,
 0.0 st
%Cpu3  :  0.7 us,  2.3 sy,  0.0 ni, 94.1 id,  3.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,
 0.0 st
KiB Mem : 16427572 total,   173712 free,  9739976 used,  6513884 buff/cache
KiB Swap:  6369276 total,  6126736 free,   242540 used.  6224836 avail Mem

This seems OK to me. It does have 24 drives in 3 ZFS pools at 144TB raw
storage in total with several SAS HBAs that is pretty much always poking
the system in some way or the other.

There are around 32K interrupts when running @23 MB/s (as seen in chrome
downloads) with pacing on and about 25K interrupts when running @105 MB/s
with fq nopacing. Is that normal?

Hans-Kristian


On 26 January 2017 at 20:58, David Lang  wrote:

> Is there any CPU bottleneck?
>
> pacing causing this sort of problem makes me thing that the CPU either
> can't keep up or that something (Hz setting type of thing) is delaying when
> the CPU can get used.
>
> It's not clear from the posts if the problem is with sending data or
> receiving data.
>
> David Lang
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2017, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> Nothing jumps on my head.
>>
>> We use FQ on links varying from 1Gbit to 100Gbit, and we have no such
>> issues.
>>
>> You could probably check on the server the TCP various infos given by ss
>> command
>>
>>
>> ss -temoi dst 
>>
>>
>> pacing rate is shown. You might have some issues, but it is hard to say.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 19:55 +0100, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote:
>>
>>> After some more testing I see that if I disable fq pacing the
>>> performance is restored to the expected levels: # for i in eth0 eth1; do
>>> tc qdisc replace dev $i root fq nopacing;
>>> done
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this expected behaviour? There is some background traffic, but only
>>> in the sub 100 mbit/s on the switches and gateway between the server
>>> and client.
>>>
>>>
>>> The chain:
>>> Windows 10 client -> 1000 mbit/s -> switch -> 2xgigabit LACP -> switch
>>> -> 4 x gigabit LACP -> gw (fq_codel on all nics) -> 4 x gigabit LACP
>>> (the same as in) -> switch -> 2 x lacp -> server (with misbehaving fq
>>> pacing)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 January 2017 at 19:38, Hans-Kristian Bakke 
>>> wrote:
>>> I can add that this is without BBR, just plain old kernel 4.8
>>> cubic.
>>>
>>> On 26 January 2017 at 19:36, Hans-Kristian Bakke
>>>  wrote:
>>> Another day, another fq issue (or user error).
>>>
>>>
>>> I try to do the seeminlig simple task of downloading a
>>> single large file over local gigabit  LAN from a
>>> physical server running kernel 4.8 and sch_fq on intel
>>> server NICs.
>>>
>>>
>>> For some reason it wouldn't go past around 25 MB/s.
>>> After having replaced SSL with no SSL, replaced apache
>>> with nginx and verified that there is plenty of
>>> bandwith available between my client and the server I
>>> tried to change qdisc from fq to pfifo_fast. It
>>> instantly shot up to around the expected 85-90 MB/s.
>>> The same happened with fq_codel in place of fq.
>>>
>>>
>>> I then checked the statistics for fq and the throttled
>>> counter is increasing massively every second (eth0 and
>>> eth1 is LACPed using Linux bonding so both is seen
>>> here):
>>>
>>>
>>> qdisc fq 8007: root refcnt 2 limit 1p flow_limit
>>> 100p buckets 1024 orphan_mask 1023 quantum 3028
>>>

Re: [Bloat] Excessive throttling with fq

2017-01-26 Thread David Lang 

Is there any CPU bottleneck?

pacing causing this sort of problem makes me thing that the CPU either can't 
keep up or that something (Hz setting type of thing) is delaying when the CPU 
can get used.


It's not clear from the posts if the problem is with sending data or receiving 
data.


David Lang

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017, Eric Dumazet wrote:


Nothing jumps on my head.

We use FQ on links varying from 1Gbit to 100Gbit, and we have no such
issues.

You could probably check on the server the TCP various infos given by ss
command


ss -temoi dst 


pacing rate is shown. You might have some issues, but it is hard to say.


On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 19:55 +0100, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote:

After some more testing I see that if I disable fq pacing the
performance is restored to the expected levels: 
# for i in eth0 eth1; do tc qdisc replace dev $i root fq nopacing;

done


Is this expected behaviour? There is some background traffic, but only
in the sub 100 mbit/s on the switches and gateway between the server
and client.


The chain:
Windows 10 client -> 1000 mbit/s -> switch -> 2xgigabit LACP -> switch
-> 4 x gigabit LACP -> gw (fq_codel on all nics) -> 4 x gigabit LACP
(the same as in) -> switch -> 2 x lacp -> server (with misbehaving fq
pacing)



On 26 January 2017 at 19:38, Hans-Kristian Bakke 
wrote:
I can add that this is without BBR, just plain old kernel 4.8
cubic.

On 26 January 2017 at 19:36, Hans-Kristian Bakke
 wrote:
Another day, another fq issue (or user error).


I try to do the seeminlig simple task of downloading a
single large file over local gigabit  LAN from a
physical server running kernel 4.8 and sch_fq on intel
server NICs.


For some reason it wouldn't go past around 25 MB/s.
After having replaced SSL with no SSL, replaced apache
with nginx and verified that there is plenty of
bandwith available between my client and the server I
tried to change qdisc from fq to pfifo_fast. It
instantly shot up to around the expected 85-90 MB/s.
The same happened with fq_codel in place of fq.


I then checked the statistics for fq and the throttled
counter is increasing massively every second (eth0 and
eth1 is LACPed using Linux bonding so both is seen
here):


qdisc fq 8007: root refcnt 2 limit 1p flow_limit
100p buckets 1024 orphan_mask 1023 quantum 3028
initial_quantum 15140 refill_delay 40.0ms
 Sent 787131797 bytes 520082 pkt (dropped 15,
overlimits 0 requeues 0)
 backlog 98410b 65p requeues 0
  15 flows (14 inactive, 1 throttled)
  0 gc, 2 highprio, 259920 throttled, 15 flows_plimit
qdisc fq 8008: root refcnt 2 limit 1p flow_limit
100p buckets 1024 orphan_mask 1023 quantum 3028
initial_quantum 15140 refill_delay 40.0ms
 Sent 2533167 bytes 6731 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0
requeues 0)
 backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
  24 flows (24 inactive, 0 throttled)
  0 gc, 2 highprio, 397 throttled


Do you have any suggestions?


Regards,
Hans-Kristian




___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat



___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] Excessive throttling with fq

2017-01-26 Thread Eric Dumazet 
Nothing jumps on my head.

We use FQ on links varying from 1Gbit to 100Gbit, and we have no such
issues.

You could probably check on the server the TCP various infos given by ss
command


ss -temoi dst 


pacing rate is shown. You might have some issues, but it is hard to say.


On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 19:55 +0100, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote:
> After some more testing I see that if I disable fq pacing the
> performance is restored to the expected levels: 
> # for i in eth0 eth1; do tc qdisc replace dev $i root fq nopacing;
> done
> 
> 
> Is this expected behaviour? There is some background traffic, but only
> in the sub 100 mbit/s on the switches and gateway between the server
> and client.
> 
> 
> The chain:
> Windows 10 client -> 1000 mbit/s -> switch -> 2xgigabit LACP -> switch
> -> 4 x gigabit LACP -> gw (fq_codel on all nics) -> 4 x gigabit LACP
> (the same as in) -> switch -> 2 x lacp -> server (with misbehaving fq
> pacing)
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 January 2017 at 19:38, Hans-Kristian Bakke 
> wrote:
> I can add that this is without BBR, just plain old kernel 4.8
> cubic.
> 
> On 26 January 2017 at 19:36, Hans-Kristian Bakke
>  wrote:
> Another day, another fq issue (or user error).
> 
> 
> I try to do the seeminlig simple task of downloading a
> single large file over local gigabit  LAN from a
> physical server running kernel 4.8 and sch_fq on intel
> server NICs.
> 
> 
> For some reason it wouldn't go past around 25 MB/s.
> After having replaced SSL with no SSL, replaced apache
> with nginx and verified that there is plenty of
> bandwith available between my client and the server I
> tried to change qdisc from fq to pfifo_fast. It
> instantly shot up to around the expected 85-90 MB/s.
> The same happened with fq_codel in place of fq.
> 
> 
> I then checked the statistics for fq and the throttled
> counter is increasing massively every second (eth0 and
> eth1 is LACPed using Linux bonding so both is seen
> here):
> 
> 
> qdisc fq 8007: root refcnt 2 limit 1p flow_limit
> 100p buckets 1024 orphan_mask 1023 quantum 3028
> initial_quantum 15140 refill_delay 40.0ms
>  Sent 787131797 bytes 520082 pkt (dropped 15,
> overlimits 0 requeues 0)
>  backlog 98410b 65p requeues 0
>   15 flows (14 inactive, 1 throttled)
>   0 gc, 2 highprio, 259920 throttled, 15 flows_plimit
> qdisc fq 8008: root refcnt 2 limit 1p flow_limit
> 100p buckets 1024 orphan_mask 1023 quantum 3028
> initial_quantum 15140 refill_delay 40.0ms
>  Sent 2533167 bytes 6731 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0
> requeues 0)
>  backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
>   24 flows (24 inactive, 0 throttled)
>   0 gc, 2 highprio, 397 throttled
> 
> 
> Do you have any suggestions?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Hans-Kristian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat


___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] Excessive throttling with fq

2017-01-26 Thread Hans-Kristian Bakke 
After some more testing I see that if I disable fq pacing the performance
is restored to the expected levels:
# for i in eth0 eth1; do tc qdisc replace dev $i root fq nopacing; done

Is this expected behaviour? There is some background traffic, but only in
the sub 100 mbit/s on the switches and gateway between the server and
client.

The chain:
Windows 10 client -> 1000 mbit/s -> switch -> 2xgigabit LACP -> switch -> 4
x gigabit LACP -> gw (fq_codel on all nics) -> 4 x gigabit LACP (the same
as in) -> switch -> 2 x lacp -> server (with misbehaving fq pacing)


On 26 January 2017 at 19:38, Hans-Kristian Bakke  wrote:

> I can add that this is without BBR, just plain old kernel 4.8 cubic.
>
> On 26 January 2017 at 19:36, Hans-Kristian Bakke 
> wrote:
>
>> Another day, another fq issue (or user error).
>>
>> I try to do the seeminlig simple task of downloading a single large file
>> over local gigabit  LAN from a physical server running kernel 4.8 and
>> sch_fq on intel server NICs.
>>
>> For some reason it wouldn't go past around 25 MB/s. After having replaced
>> SSL with no SSL, replaced apache with nginx and verified that there is
>> plenty of bandwith available between my client and the server I tried to
>> change qdisc from fq to pfifo_fast. It instantly shot up to around the
>> expected 85-90 MB/s. The same happened with fq_codel in place of fq.
>>
>> I then checked the statistics for fq and the throttled counter is
>> increasing massively every second (eth0 and eth1 is LACPed using Linux
>> bonding so both is seen here):
>>
>> qdisc fq 8007: root refcnt 2 limit 1p flow_limit 100p buckets 1024
>> orphan_mask 1023 quantum 3028 initial_quantum 15140 refill_delay 40.0ms
>>  Sent 787131797 bytes 520082 pkt (dropped 15, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
>>  backlog 98410b 65p requeues 0
>>   15 flows (14 inactive, 1 throttled)
>>   0 gc, 2 highprio, 259920 throttled, 15 flows_plimit
>> qdisc fq 8008: root refcnt 2 limit 1p flow_limit 100p buckets 1024
>> orphan_mask 1023 quantum 3028 initial_quantum 15140 refill_delay 40.0ms
>>  Sent 2533167 bytes 6731 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
>>  backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
>>   24 flows (24 inactive, 0 throttled)
>>   0 gc, 2 highprio, 397 throttled
>>
>> Do you have any suggestions?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans-Kristian
>>
>
>
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] Excessive throttling with fq

2017-01-26 Thread Hans-Kristian Bakke 
I can add that this is without BBR, just plain old kernel 4.8 cubic.

On 26 January 2017 at 19:36, Hans-Kristian Bakke  wrote:

> Another day, another fq issue (or user error).
>
> I try to do the seeminlig simple task of downloading a single large file
> over local gigabit  LAN from a physical server running kernel 4.8 and
> sch_fq on intel server NICs.
>
> For some reason it wouldn't go past around 25 MB/s. After having replaced
> SSL with no SSL, replaced apache with nginx and verified that there is
> plenty of bandwith available between my client and the server I tried to
> change qdisc from fq to pfifo_fast. It instantly shot up to around the
> expected 85-90 MB/s. The same happened with fq_codel in place of fq.
>
> I then checked the statistics for fq and the throttled counter is
> increasing massively every second (eth0 and eth1 is LACPed using Linux
> bonding so both is seen here):
>
> qdisc fq 8007: root refcnt 2 limit 1p flow_limit 100p buckets 1024
> orphan_mask 1023 quantum 3028 initial_quantum 15140 refill_delay 40.0ms
>  Sent 787131797 bytes 520082 pkt (dropped 15, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
>  backlog 98410b 65p requeues 0
>   15 flows (14 inactive, 1 throttled)
>   0 gc, 2 highprio, 259920 throttled, 15 flows_plimit
> qdisc fq 8008: root refcnt 2 limit 1p flow_limit 100p buckets 1024
> orphan_mask 1023 quantum 3028 initial_quantum 15140 refill_delay 40.0ms
>  Sent 2533167 bytes 6731 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
>  backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
>   24 flows (24 inactive, 0 throttled)
>   0 gc, 2 highprio, 397 throttled
>
> Do you have any suggestions?
>
> Regards,
> Hans-Kristian
>
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

[Bloat] Excessive throttling with fq

2017-01-26 Thread Hans-Kristian Bakke 
Another day, another fq issue (or user error).

I try to do the seeminlig simple task of downloading a single large file
over local gigabit  LAN from a physical server running kernel 4.8 and
sch_fq on intel server NICs.

For some reason it wouldn't go past around 25 MB/s. After having replaced
SSL with no SSL, replaced apache with nginx and verified that there is
plenty of bandwith available between my client and the server I tried to
change qdisc from fq to pfifo_fast. It instantly shot up to around the
expected 85-90 MB/s. The same happened with fq_codel in place of fq.

I then checked the statistics for fq and the throttled counter is
increasing massively every second (eth0 and eth1 is LACPed using Linux
bonding so both is seen here):

qdisc fq 8007: root refcnt 2 limit 1p flow_limit 100p buckets 1024
orphan_mask 1023 quantum 3028 initial_quantum 15140 refill_delay 40.0ms
 Sent 787131797 bytes 520082 pkt (dropped 15, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
 backlog 98410b 65p requeues 0
  15 flows (14 inactive, 1 throttled)
  0 gc, 2 highprio, 259920 throttled, 15 flows_plimit
qdisc fq 8008: root refcnt 2 limit 1p flow_limit 100p buckets 1024
orphan_mask 1023 quantum 3028 initial_quantum 15140 refill_delay 40.0ms
 Sent 2533167 bytes 6731 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
 backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
  24 flows (24 inactive, 0 throttled)
  0 gc, 2 highprio, 397 throttled

Do you have any suggestions?

Regards,
Hans-Kristian
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat