Re: Packets Per Second Limit?
On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone know the maximum packets per second that can traverse a 100MB internet link. From what I've been able to gather its about 8300 or so? Is this number accurate? Do connections just start to timeout once I hit this limit? I'm a little worried about this because we are fast approaching this mark and am afraid were gonna hit it before we max out are available bandwidth? Anyone ever run into this situation or am I just paranoid? well, 8300 x 1500 x 8 = 99.6mbit. congratulations. And yes, when you saturate a interface with more packets than it can transmit you will.be out of bandwidth. btw, If you were looking for google its at google.com.
Re: Packets Per Second Limit?
Depends on the byte size of the packet. If most of your throughput is standard 1500 byte packets, you should have little to no problem. If someone starts blasting out 64 byte packets at wire speed though, your link will be toast long before traffic ever reaches 100Mbps. On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone know the maximum packets per second that can traverse a 100MB internet link. From what I've been able to gather its about 8300 or so? Is this number accurate? Do connections just start to timeout once I hit this limit? I'm a little worried about this because we are fast approaching this mark and am afraid were gonna hit it before we max out are available bandwidth? Anyone ever run into this situation or am I just paranoid?
Re: Packets Per Second Limit?
On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone know the maximum packets per second that can traverse a 100MB internet link. From what I've been able to gather its about 8300 or so? Is this number accurate? Do connections just start to timeout once I hit this limit? I'm a little worried about this because we are fast approaching this mark and am afraid were gonna hit it before we max out are available bandwidth? Anyone ever run into this situation or am I just paranoid? Packets per second are a capability limitation of the equipment interfaces responsible for passing the traffic and don't directly relate to the link speed. It's also highly dependent on the size of the packets being passed by the interface. It's dependent on many several factors, actually. You hit a pps limit and you'll see packets drop; the interface simply can't keep up with the throughput. DS
Re: Packets Per Second Limit?
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 12:18 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone know the maximum packets per second that can traverse a 100MB internet link. From what I've been able to gather its about 8300 or so? Is this number accurate? Do connections just start to timeout once I hit this limit? I'm a little worried about this because we are fast approaching this mark and am afraid were gonna hit it before we max out are available bandwidth? Anyone ever run into this situation or am I just paranoid? This[1] caculation is for 10Mb ethernet, but multiply that by 10 and you get 148800 packets per second. [1] http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/course/lan-pages/enet-calc.html Jeff [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: Packets Per Second Limit?
On 2007/05/31 12:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone know the maximum packets per second that can traverse a 100MB internet link. From what I've been able to gather its about 8300 or so? 100Mb - somewhere between that and about 220,000. depends on packet size. you're probably more interested in how many pps the devices *either side of that link* can handle, though. you'll have to find this out for yourself. if I run a packet generator on box 1 (amd64 MP/sk) sending small UDP packets towards box 2 (i386 MP/bge) with just a switch between them (all gigabit), I see this rate of bytes/sec and pps: (this is all pre-hackathon kernels) IfaceState IbytesIpkts Ierrs ObytesOpkts OerrsColls sk0 up:U7000 100 0 18364134 322176 00 - in Mbit/s: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:12103$ echo $((18364134*8/1024)) 143469 and all is reasonably ok, things are not too bad on either system. plenty of cpu is in use but things mostly still work ok. Do connections just start to timeout once I hit this limit? depends on all sorts of things. NIC type, packet sizes, what kernel you're using (i386/amd64/UP/MP), PF on or off, how applications handle that kind of traffic if they're involved rather than just routing or bridging ... but 8k pps is not really very much for a system to handle. with the above example: if I reverse things and send from box 2 to box 1, box 1 grinds to a standstill, it doesn't respond to anything typed at the console until the packet flow ceases since all time is processing interrupts. and that's at just 150kpps or so which is all that box2 manages to send. (i386 MP kernel/bge) I'm a little worried about this because we are fast approaching this mark and am afraid were gonna hit it before we max out are available bandwidth? Anyone ever run into this situation or am I just paranoid? generate some load, do some testing, and see what happens. you are probably worrying too much at 8kpps if the pipe is not nearly near full.
Re: Packets Per Second Limit?
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 03:43:56PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Were nearing the 8300pps mark so I was worried? But should I be? You're fine. The 8300pps mark is not an upper limit, it's the best case for a full 100Mbit ethernet link (ignoring jumbograms). Becuase the majority of my packets are smaller then 64B, shouldn't I be able to pass a lot more packets then 8300pps? Yes, depending on limitations of your firewall hardware, pf ruleset, size of state table, etc. If all my packets were 64K or smaller, shouldn't that allow me to be able to handle closer to 200k packets/sec before hitting my bandwidth limit? For this you will need a reasonably fast box with good gigabit ethernet cards (em or sk), and an intelligently written ruleset. It seems like you're a long way away from 200k pps, though.
Re: Packets Per Second Limit?
On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Depends on the byte size of the packet. If most of your throughput is
standard 1500 byte packets, you should have little to no problem.
If someone starts blasting out 64 byte packets at wire speed though,
your link will be toast long before traffic ever reaches 100Mbps.
This is exactly what Im worried about but Im not sure if I should be or not.
Because of some of the applications we host, a ton of small packets are
being generated. Heres a breakdown by packetsize.
= 64 bytes 48.1%
64 to 128 bytes 21.1%
129 to 256 bytes 1.6%
257 to 512 bytes 7.8%
513 to 1024 bytes 5.6%
1025 to 1518 bytes 15.8%
and here is what are pps and bandwidth look like.
queue root_em0 bandwidth 100Mb priority 0 cbq( wrr root ) {ext_root_queue}
[ pkts: 767614230 bytes: 467721711758 dropped pkts: 0 bytes:
0 ]
[ qlength: 0/ 50 borrows: 0 suspends: 0 ]
[ measured: 6448.5 packets/s, 31.21Mb/s ]
Were nearing the 8300pps mark so I was worried? But should I be? Becuase the
majority of my packets are smaller then 64B, shouldn't I be able to pass a
lot more packets then 8300pps? If all my packets were 64K or smaller,
shouldn't that allow me to be able to handle closer to 200k packets/sec
before hitting my bandwidth limit?
by the way. I know where google is. I've been there and have even read some
of the links that are posted in this very thread. However I am confused and
there even seems to be some confusion/discrepancies within this thread... so
I thought I would bounce the question off of people who might have a better
grip on this than I, and already been through similar situations for
feedback, something google cant offer(yet). I am not going to apologize for
my ignorance but thank the people who are actually trying to help me
understand this, without being a smartass about it.
On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone know the maximum packets per second that can traverse a 100MB
internet link. From what I've been able to gather its about 8300 or so?
Is
this number accurate? Do connections just start to timeout once I hit
this
limit? I'm a little worried about this because we are fast approaching
this
mark and am afraid were gonna hit it before we max out are available
bandwidth? Anyone ever run into this situation or am I just paranoid?
Re: Packets Per Second Limit?
[ qlength: 0/ 50 borrows: 0 suspends: 0 ] [ measured: 6448.5 packets/s, 31.21Mb/s ] Were nearing the 8300pps mark so I was worried? But should I be? Becuase the majority of my packets are smaller then 64B, shouldn't I be able to pass a lot more packets then 8300pps? If all my packets were 64K or smaller, that is not a high enough rate of packets to worry about unless it's running on very weak hardware or there's some other problem. if this becomes a problem you'll see things like high cpu% in interrupt in top(1) output. shouldn't that allow me to be able to handle closer to 200k packets/sec before hitting my bandwidth limit? you'll probably hit bandwidth limits before you run into problems through too-high pps on a 100Mb link with em(4) nics. there even seems to be some confusion/discrepancies within this thread... welcome to misc@
Re: Packets Per Second Limit?
On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] by the way. I know where google is. I've been there and have even read some of the links that are posted in this very thread. However I am confused and there even seems to be some confusion/discrepancies within this thread... so I thought I would bounce the question off of people who might have a better grip on this than I, and already been through similar situations for feedback, something google cant offer(yet). I am not going to apologize for my ignorance but thank the people who are actually trying to help me understand this, without being a smartass about it. First rule of Fight Club: dont' talk about Fight Club. Second rule of Fight Club: don't take public mailing lists so seriously. People will be smartasses. You will get ridiculed for questions you ask, good or bad. Oftentimes you'll actually deserve it. Thicken the skin and wear flame-retardant apparel. Smell the roses. Enjoy the experience; it's not going to change any time soon. DS
Re: Packets Per Second Limit?
ok i feel better now and i think i got a better handle on this then before. its a fast box with plenty of memory, intel pro gig eth cards (em), about 350k in the state table at the moment, with fairly small ruleset, intelligenty would probably be up for debate! I would like to think so. Thanks. On 5/31/07, Ryan McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 03:43:56PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Were nearing the 8300pps mark so I was worried? But should I be? You're fine. The 8300pps mark is not an upper limit, it's the best case for a full 100Mbit ethernet link (ignoring jumbograms). Becuase the majority of my packets are smaller then 64B, shouldn't I be able to pass a lot more packets then 8300pps? Yes, depending on limitations of your firewall hardware, pf ruleset, size of state table, etc. If all my packets were 64K or smaller, shouldn't that allow me to be able to handle closer to 200k packets/sec before hitting my bandwidth limit? For this you will need a reasonably fast box with good gigabit ethernet cards (em or sk), and an intelligently written ruleset. It seems like you're a long way away from 200k pps, though.
