Re: 10G performance regression / difference cxl and ix RELENG11 vs HEAD

2018-10-12 Thread Mike Tancsa
On 10/12/2018 12:52 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote: > > The number of retries (the "Retr" column) should have been 0 in a > controlled test like this. Is this the default stack with all default > parameters or have you tuned TCP and/or sockets in any way? No tuning at all.  After a reboot and one

Re: 10G performance regression / difference cxl and ix RELENG11 vs HEAD

2018-10-12 Thread Navdeep Parhar
On 10/12/18 9:52 AM, Navdeep Parhar wrote: > The number of retries (the "Retr" column) should have been 0 in a retransmits, not retries. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To

Re: 10G performance regression / difference cxl and ix RELENG11 vs HEAD

2018-10-12 Thread Navdeep Parhar
On 10/12/18 8:37 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote: > I was doing a quick iperf test with  r339328 GENERIC-NODEBUG  amd64, and > noticed  I can no longer saturate a 10G nic with iperf3.  I tried first > with the ix adapter, but was not sure if it was the driver or not. I > tried as well with a Chelsio and got