subject:"Network Bandwidth issue in VLAN\-Router"

Re: Network Bandwidth issue in VLAN-Router

2019-07-28 Thread Rainer Dorsch

[please follow-up on debian-arm since it is an imx6 specific issue]

Hi,

I found in the meantime

https://boundarydevices.com/i-mx6-ethernet/

describes most likely the issue I see, in particular the transfer rate 
degradation to 3 Mbits/s is what I see

root@linaro-nano:~# tsecs=2 incr=200 ./bwtest.sh
--bandwidth 200
[  4]  0.0- 2.0 sec  48.1 MBytes   203 Mbits/sec   0.061 ms  164/34479 (0.48%)
[  3]  0.0- 2.0 sec  48.3 MBytes   203 Mbits/sec   0.034 ms0/34483 (0%)
--bandwidth 400
[  4]  0.0- 2.0 sec  96.5 MBytes   405 Mbits/sec   0.040 ms   67/68911 
(0.097%)
[  3]  0.0- 1.9 sec  93.9 MBytes   406 Mbits/sec   0.035 ms 1990/68965 (2.9%)
--bandwidth 600
[  4]  0.0- 2.0 sec   110 MBytes   460 Mbits/sec   0.030 ms  234/78615 (0.3%)
[  3]  0.0- 2.3 sec   110 MBytes   410 Mbits/sec  15.672 ms 26703/105262 (25%)
--bandwidth 800
[  4]  0.0- 2.0 sec   110 MBytes   461 Mbits/sec   0.033 ms0/78511 (0%)
[  3]  0.0- 2.2 sec  2.91 MBytes  11.1 Mbits/sec  101.865 ms 140266/142342 
(99%)
--bandwidth 1000
[  4]  0.0- 2.0 sec   110 MBytes   461 Mbits/sec   0.033 ms0/78383 (0%)
[  3]  0.0- 0.2 sec  90.4 KBytes  3.18 Mbits/sec  110.420 ms 141295/141358 
(1e+02%)

in addition, I see

root@home:~# ethtool eth0
Settings for eth0:
Supported ports: [ TP MII ]
Supported link modes:   10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full 
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full 
1000baseT/Full 
Supported pause frame use: No
Supports auto-negotiation: Yes
Advertised link modes:  10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full 
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full 
1000baseT/Full 
Advertised pause frame use: No
Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
Link partner advertised link modes:  10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full 
 100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full 
 1000baseT/Full 
Link partner advertised pause frame use: Symmetric Receive-only
Link partner advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
Speed: 1000Mb/s
Duplex: Full
Port: MII
PHYAD: 0
Transceiver: internal
Auto-negotiation: on
Supports Wake-on: d
Wake-on: d
Link detected: yes
root@home:~# 

shows the same output as in their before scenario causing the bandwidth 
degradation.

Is anybody else seeing this with an imx6 device like the cubox-i?

Thanks
Rainer

PS:
What still puzzles me is that I see this issue only if I leave the subnet. 
Possibly there are other mechanism to limit the traffic in case of overruns on 
a 
local network, but here I am guessing (?)

Am Sonntag, 28. Juli 2019, 05:46:36 CEST schrieb Nicholas Geovanis:
> I can tell you that i have precisely this issue in Chicago. But the fact is
> that for me it was a result of rate-limiting at the IP provider ATT. It is
> not necessarily related directly, but senior citizens :-) may recall the
> differential up/down bandwidth on ISDN.
> At my last apartment i had fiber directly into my bedroom. Here it is over
> copper to the building wiring. I took a 25% hit on bandwidth up and down. I
> yelled at them for a rate reduction, but no dice.
> 
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019, 8:24 AM Rainer Dorsch  wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I have a stretch box configured as VLAN router (Cubox -i2ex). There is a
> > drastic difference between the bandwidth of the uplink (VLAN1) and the
> > downlinks (VLAN 2 to 7):
> > 
> > On 192.168.7.1 (VLAN 7: eth0.7) I see arround 9 MB/s in a simple test:
> > rd@home:~$ wget -O /dev/null http://fs/debian-9.3.0-amd64-netinst.iso
> > [...] (9.08 MB/s)
> > rd@home:~$
> > 
> > On 192.168.0.30 (VLAN 1: eth0.1) is see less than 10%:
> > rd@home:~$ wget -O /dev/null
> > https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz
> > --2019-07-27 14:46:38--
> > https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz
> > [...] (339KB/s)
> > 
> > To prove that it has nothing to do with the uplink (there is a Fritzbox
> > 6430)
> > itself, I connected another  machine on same VLAN 1 (192.168.0.203). So
> > overall, the network looks like this
> > 
> > 
> > Internet
> > 
> > 
> > Fritz-Box
> > 
> > |   192.168.0.203
> > |
> > |--- x86
> > |
> > | 192.168.0.30
> > 
> > Cubox i
> > 
> > | 192.168.7.*
> > 
> > Note, the Cubox-i has only 1 physical interface, drawn are the virtual
> > interface.
> > 
> > The x86 machine reaches also a much higher network bandwidth:
> > 
> > rd@h370:~/tmp.nobackup$ wget -O /dev/null
> > https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/
> > linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz
> > 
> > [...] (5,49 MB/s)
> > rd@h370:~/tmp.nobackup$
> > 
> > I did run ifstat to confirm that there is no other traffic which consumes
> > all the
> > bandwidth:
> > 
> > rd@home:/etc/shorewall$ ifstat -i eth0.1 1
> > 
> >   eth0.1
> >  
> >  KB/s

Re: Network Bandwidth issue in VLAN-Router

2019-07-27 Thread Nicholas Geovanis

I can tell you that i have precisely this issue in Chicago. But the fact is
that for me it was a result of rate-limiting at the IP provider ATT. It is
not necessarily related directly, but senior citizens :-) may recall the
differential up/down bandwidth on ISDN.
At my last apartment i had fiber directly into my bedroom. Here it is over
copper to the building wiring. I took a 25% hit on bandwidth up and down. I
yelled at them for a rate reduction, but no dice.

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019, 8:24 AM Rainer Dorsch  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have a stretch box configured as VLAN router (Cubox -i2ex). There is a
> drastic difference between the bandwidth of the uplink (VLAN1) and the
> downlinks (VLAN 2 to 7):
>
> On 192.168.7.1 (VLAN 7: eth0.7) I see arround 9 MB/s in a simple test:
> rd@home:~$ wget -O /dev/null http://fs/debian-9.3.0-amd64-netinst.iso
> [...] (9.08 MB/s)
> rd@home:~$
>
> On 192.168.0.30 (VLAN 1: eth0.1) is see less than 10%:
> rd@home:~$ wget -O /dev/null
> https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz
> --2019-07-27 14:46:38--
> https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz
> [...] (339KB/s)
>
> To prove that it has nothing to do with the uplink (there is a Fritzbox
> 6430)
> itself, I connected another  machine on same VLAN 1 (192.168.0.203). So
> overall, the network looks like this
>
>
> Internet
> |
> |
> Fritz-Box
> |
> |   192.168.0.203
> |--- x86
> |
> | 192.168.0.30
> |
> Cubox i
> |
> | 192.168.7.*
> |
>
> Note, the Cubox-i has only 1 physical interface, drawn are the virtual
> interface.
>
> The x86 machine reaches also a much higher network bandwidth:
>
> rd@h370:~/tmp.nobackup$ wget -O /dev/null
> https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/
> linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz
> 
> [...] (5,49 MB/s)
> rd@h370:~/tmp.nobackup$
>
> I did run ifstat to confirm that there is no other traffic which consumes
> all the
> bandwidth:
>
> rd@home:/etc/shorewall$ ifstat -i eth0.1 1
>   eth0.1
>  KB/s in  KB/s out
>   495.00 16.34
>   417.14 16.03
>   484.33 16.53
>   384.80 11.96
>   393.33 12.67
>   632.59 17.68
>   607.90 17.91
>   354.39 12.00
>   678.58 20.97
>  1119.24 26.88
>  1185.20 27.27
>   925.91 21.84
>  1245.82 27.88
>   940.69 26.06
>  1023.72 26.89
>  1114.13 26.33
>   997.74 24.56
>   876.72 19.49
>  1167.56 27.73
>   906.41 24.30
>  1127.62 27.36
>   919.79 20.01
>   915.31 20.95
>   990.86 23.97
>  1119.22 26.94
>   905.54 26.40
>  1143.21 28.44
>  1096.15 26.98
>   924.62 24.89
>  1076.53 24.87
>  1004.04 23.99
>   811.11 23.13
>   983.71 24.46
>   885.05 23.19
>  1052.26 43.33
>  1230.55 37.11
>  1517.61 33.67
>   818.60 24.37
>  1057.24 26.63
>  1131.38 26.47
>  1278.43 30.12
>  1123.24 24.31
>   788.14 21.74
>   757.56 23.86
>  1135.29 27.91
>  1161.76 25.15
>  1465.32 32.04
>  1175.41 26.16
>  1371.36 31.56
>   811.73 21.70
>   540.97 16.91
>   381.78 20.95
>   306.44 13.07
>   378.02 12.93
>   603.65 16.67
>   418.31 16.35
>   393.71 16.46
>   479.89 15.05
>   436.74 13.85
>   395.96 12.05
>   476.41 14.51
>   470.09 18.23
>   322.02 12.20
>   427.35 14.33
>   464.25 14.39
>   404.19 11.09
>   999.41 24.39
>   931.23 24.89
>
> Also top does not show any obvious overload:
>
> rd@home:~$ top
> top - 14:51:53 up 34 days,  1:18,  3 users,  load average: 1.10, 1.11,
> 1.24
> Tasks: 177 total,   2 running, 125 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
> %Cpu(s):  5.2 us,  5.2 sy,  0.0 ni, 87.9 id,  0.2 wa,  0.0 hi,  1.5 si,
> 0.0
> st
> KiB Mem :  2062764 total,89308 free,   239480 used,  1733976
> buff/cache
> KiB Swap:  4726172 total,  4726172 free,0 used.  1740396 avail
> Mem
>
>  PID USER  PR  NIVIRTRESSHR S  %CPU %MEM TIME+
> COMMAND
>
>
> 13341 rd20   0   12072   7196   3716 S   3.6  0.3   0:01.33 wget
>
>
>
> 7221 root  20   0   62236   3508   2468 S   2.9  0.2 394:36.44
> owserver
>
>
> 1257 rd20   04036   2304   2052 S   2.0  0.1 945:39.61 reed-
> contact-mo
>
>
> 7687 rd20   04712   2508   1596 S   2.0  0.1 571:54.03
> monitor.sh
>
>
> 13597 rd20   07212   2900   2276 R   1.6  0.1   0:00.53 top
>
>
>
> 1040 asterisk  20   0  221968  58292  30316 S   1.3  2.8 565:37.76
> asterisk
>
>
>   17 root  20   0   0  0  0 S   0.7  0.0 434:16.89
> ksoftirqd/1
>
>
>   10 root  20   0   0  0  0 R   0.3  0.0  94:31.09
> rcu_sched
>
>
>  202 root  20   0   27144   6192   5760 S   0.3  0.3  89:57.07 systemd-
> journal
>
>
> 8678 root   0 -20   0  0  0 I   0.3  0.0   0:22.47 kworker/
> 2:2H-kb
>
>
> 21622 root  20   0   0  0  0 I   0.3  0.0   0:01.57
> kworker/
> u8:3-ev
>
>
> 32581 root

Network Bandwidth issue in VLAN-Router

2019-07-27 Thread Rainer Dorsch

Hi,

I have a stretch box configured as VLAN router (Cubox -i2ex). There is a 
drastic difference between the bandwidth of the uplink (VLAN1) and the 
downlinks (VLAN 2 to 7):

On 192.168.7.1 (VLAN 7: eth0.7) I see arround 9 MB/s in a simple test:
rd@home:~$ wget -O /dev/null http://fs/debian-9.3.0-amd64-netinst.iso 
[...] (9.08 MB/s)
rd@home:~$

On 192.168.0.30 (VLAN 1: eth0.1) is see less than 10%:
rd@home:~$ wget -O /dev/null 
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz   
--2019-07-27 14:46:38--  https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz 
[...] (339KB/s)

To prove that it has nothing to do with the uplink (there is a Fritzbox 6430) 
itself, I connected another  machine on same VLAN 1 (192.168.0.203). So 
overall, the network looks like this 


Internet
|
|
Fritz-Box
|
|   192.168.0.203
|--- x86
|
| 192.168.0.30
|
Cubox i
|
| 192.168.7.*
|

Note, the Cubox-i has only 1 physical interface, drawn are the virtual 
interface.

The x86 machine reaches also a much higher network bandwidth:

rd@h370:~/tmp.nobackup$ wget -O /dev/null https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/
linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz 
[...] (5,49 MB/s)
rd@h370:~/tmp.nobackup$

I did run ifstat to confirm that there is no other traffic which consumes all 
the 
bandwidth:

rd@home:/etc/shorewall$ ifstat -i eth0.1 1
  eth0.1  
 KB/s in  KB/s out
  495.00 16.34
  417.14 16.03
  484.33 16.53
  384.80 11.96
  393.33 12.67
  632.59 17.68
  607.90 17.91
  354.39 12.00
  678.58 20.97
 1119.24 26.88
 1185.20 27.27
  925.91 21.84
 1245.82 27.88
  940.69 26.06
 1023.72 26.89
 1114.13 26.33
  997.74 24.56
  876.72 19.49
 1167.56 27.73
  906.41 24.30
 1127.62 27.36
  919.79 20.01
  915.31 20.95
  990.86 23.97
 1119.22 26.94
  905.54 26.40
 1143.21 28.44
 1096.15 26.98
  924.62 24.89
 1076.53 24.87
 1004.04 23.99
  811.11 23.13
  983.71 24.46
  885.05 23.19
 1052.26 43.33
 1230.55 37.11
 1517.61 33.67
  818.60 24.37
 1057.24 26.63
 1131.38 26.47
 1278.43 30.12
 1123.24 24.31
  788.14 21.74
  757.56 23.86
 1135.29 27.91
 1161.76 25.15
 1465.32 32.04
 1175.41 26.16
 1371.36 31.56
  811.73 21.70
  540.97 16.91
  381.78 20.95
  306.44 13.07
  378.02 12.93
  603.65 16.67
  418.31 16.35
  393.71 16.46
  479.89 15.05
  436.74 13.85
  395.96 12.05
  476.41 14.51
  470.09 18.23
  322.02 12.20
  427.35 14.33
  464.25 14.39
  404.19 11.09
  999.41 24.39
  931.23 24.89

Also top does not show any obvious overload:

rd@home:~$ top 
top - 14:51:53 up 34 days,  1:18,  3 users,  load average: 1.10, 1.11, 1.24 
Tasks: 177 total,   2 running, 125 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie 
%Cpu(s):  5.2 us,  5.2 sy,  0.0 ni, 87.9 id,  0.2 wa,  0.0 hi,  1.5 si,  0.0 
st 
KiB Mem :  2062764 total,89308 free,   239480 used,  1733976 buff/cache 
KiB Swap:  4726172 total,  4726172 free,0 used.  1740396 avail Mem  

 PID USER  PR  NIVIRTRESSHR S  %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND  


 
13341 rd20   0   12072   7196   3716 S   3.6  0.3   0:01.33 wget


  
7221 root  20   0   62236   3508   2468 S   2.9  0.2 394:36.44 owserver 


 
1257 rd20   04036   2304   2052 S   2.0  0.1 945:39.61 reed-
contact-mo  

 
7687 rd20   04712   2508   1596 S   2.0  0.1 571:54.03 monitor.sh   


 
13597 rd20   07212   2900   2276 R   1.6  0.1   0:00.53 top 


  
1040 asterisk  20   0  221968  58292  30316 S   1.3  2.8 565:37.76 asterisk

Re: Network Bandwidth issue in VLAN-Router

Re: Network Bandwidth issue in VLAN-Router

Network Bandwidth issue in VLAN-Router

3 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information