Re: em performs worse than igb (latency wise) in 12?

2019-04-06 Thread Graham Menhennitt
Not that it's at all relevant to the question here, but... It does mostly work without em in the 12 kernel - I'm not sure how, but it does. I upgraded to 12-stable via source but didn't add em to my custom kernel. Most things worked - basic network functionality. But I had problems with

Re: em performs worse than igb (latency wise) in 12?

2019-04-06 Thread Matthew Macy
On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 1:23 PM Michael Butler wrote: > > On 2019-04-06 08:58, Kris von Mach wrote: > > On 4/6/2019 2:56 AM, Pete French wrote: > >> Something odd going on there there - I am using 12-STABLE and I have > >> igb just fine, and it attaches to the same hardware that 11 did: > > > > I

Re: em performs worse than igb (latency wise) in 12?

2019-04-06 Thread Michael Butler
On 2019-04-06 08:58, Kris von Mach wrote: > On 4/6/2019 2:56 AM, Pete French wrote: >> Something odd going on there there - I am using 12-STABLE and I have >> igb just fine, and it attaches to the same hardware that 11 did: > > I ran apache bench, and I got a result of 100 requests/sec on

Re: em performs worse than igb (latency wise) in 12?

2019-04-06 Thread Kris von Mach
On 4/6/2019 2:56 AM, Pete French wrote: Something odd going on there there - I am using 12-STABLE and I have igb just fine, and it attaches to the same hardware that 11 did: I ran apache bench, and I got a result of 100 requests/sec on 12-STABLE vs 16,000 requests/sec on 11-STABLE. So