Holy cow Simon!!! That did the trick!!!

Thank you so much! I feel like I should send you coffee or beer or
something :)

Steve

On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 11:48 AM Simon Weller <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I recall an issue a while back where the Windows Virtio drivers didn't
> support generic support offload (GRO) and it created some performance
> problems with Cisco NICs.
> This was particular to Windows and didn't occur for Linux VMs.
>
> Can you try disabling GRO on your NICs and retesting?
> ethtool -K <interface> gro off
>
> -Si
> ________________________________
> From: S.Fuller <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 9:00 AM
> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Asymmetric traffic issues?
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: This message originated outside of ENA. Use caution when
> clicking links, opening attachments, or complying with requests. Click the
> "Phish Alert Report" button above the email, or contact MIS, regarding any
> suspicious message.
>
>
>
> The servers in question are in a Cisco UCS blade chassis. The physical NIC
> card is a Cisco UCS VIC 1240, it's a multiport 10gb card that presents
> itself multiple virtual NICs to the server. Those virtual NICs use the
> Cisco enic driver.
>
> Steve
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:05 PM Simon Weller <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > ok, I managed to access your xml file via the mailing list archives.
> >
> > <interface type="bridge">
> > <mac address="02:00:69:fe:00:17"/>
> > <source bridge="breth2-315"/>
> > <target dev="vnet4"/>
> > <model type="virtio"/>
> > <link state="up"/>
> > <alias name="net2"/>
> > <address type="pci" domain="0x0000" bus="0x00" slot="0x03"
> function="0x0"/>
> > </interface>
> >
> > So, it does look correct in terms of virtio-net. One thing of note is
> that
> > kvm guests can't transmit or recieve packets in parallel, since
> virtio-net
> > only has one TX and RX queue. This tends to reduce performance on Windows
> > guests.
> > This can be addressed by enabling multi-queue (you assign a queue for
> > vCPU). There was talk of this back in 2021 on the list, but I'm not sure
> > whether it was implemented or not.
> >
> > What brand and chipset are your NICs on the servers?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Simon Weller <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 2:34 PM
> > To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: Asymmetric traffic issues?
> >
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: This message originated outside of ENA. Use caution when
> > clicking links, opening attachments, or complying with requests. Click
> the
> > "Phish Alert Report" button above the email, or contact MIS, regarding
> any
> > suspicious message.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm assuming the para-virtualized network driver is probably not being
> > used either based on the template.
> > If you take a close look at the xml for the interface, you should be able
> > to confirm that or not.
> >
> > The templates tend to package all the para-virtualized drivers together,
> > so they're normally in use, or they're not.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: S.Fuller <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 1:52 PM
> > To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: Asymmetric traffic issues?
> >
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: This message originated outside of ENA. Use caution when
> > clicking links, opening attachments, or complying with requests. Click
> the
> > "Phish Alert Report" button above the email, or contact MIS, regarding
> any
> > suspicious message.
> >
> >
> >
> > Will give that a try. I'm curious why you think changing the disk drivers
> > over to virtio will have an effect on the network throughput.
> >
> > - Steve
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 10:55 AM Simon Weller <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Unfortunately, I can't open the xml via the mailing list, but based on
> > the
> > > template you're using, it's not setup for Virtio-blk or virtio-scsi.
> > Change
> > > the template to Virtio-SCSI 64bit and the correct interface drive type
> > will
> > > be specified in the XML.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: S.Fuller <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 12:43 PM
> > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: Asymmetric traffic issues?
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm using the Windows Server 2016 profile for the template. After the
> VM
> > > came up, I installed the virtio drivers from the latest ISO, and then
> > added
> > > a new NIC so that it used the virtio network drivers vs the default
> E1000
> > > drivers.
> > >
> > > XML dump is attached
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 12:03 PM Simon Weller <[email protected]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > Can you provide a redacted dump of your libvirt xml file for the VM?
> > > Also, which OS profile are you using in Cloudstack for this? The
> Windows
> > > specific ones don't use virtio if I remember correctly, so you will
> need
> > to
> > > select Virtio-SCSI 64bit in order for the xml to be built correctly.
> > >
> > > -Si
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: S.Fuller <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:38 AM
> > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <
> > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> > > Subject: Re: Asymmetric traffic issues?
> > >
> > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: This message originated outside of ENA. Use caution
> when
> > > clicking links, opening attachments, or complying with requests. Click
> > the
> > > "Phish Alert Report" button above the email, or contact MIS, regarding
> > any
> > > suspicious message.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Neither the block nor the scsi drivers appear to be running as far as I
> > can
> > > tell.
> > >
> > > - Steve
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:07 AM Simon Weller <[email protected]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Steve,
> > > >
> > > > Are you running the virtio-block or virtio-scsi drivers?
> > > >
> > > > -Si
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: S.Fuller <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 8:52 AM
> > > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> <
> > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> > > > Subject: Re: Asymmetric traffic issues?
> > > >
> > > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: This message originated outside of ENA. Use caution
> > when
> > > > clicking links, opening attachments, or complying with requests.
> Click
> > > the
> > > > "Phish Alert Report" button above the email, or contact MIS,
> regarding
> > > any
> > > > suspicious message.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, I checked everything that I could for any QOS settings and
> there
> > is
> > > > nothing configured there. What is curious is that Idon't see this
> > > behavior
> > > > when the transmitting host is running Linux, or if I'm using the
> E1000
> > > > drivers (although with the E1000 driver, the overall throughput is
> > > lower).
> > > > It really feels like I'mrunning into some weird issue with the virtio
> > > > drivers on Windows. My Windows hosts are (to my knowledge) using the
> > > latest
> > > > version of the virtio drivers - 100.90.104.21700 dated 2/23/2022.
> > > >
> > > > Steve Fuller
> > > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 3:04 PM S.Fuller <[email protected]
> > <mailto:
> > > [email protected]>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Vivek,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the reply. I am using the KVM hypervisor. I'll will
> review
> > > the
> > > > > QoS on the hypervisor for both of the nodes.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm checking throughput between two different VMs that running on
> two
> > > > > different hosts within the same cluster. As of right now, I'm
> > receiving
> > > > > similar results using both iperf3 and nuttcp as the testing tools.
> We
> > > are
> > > > > only seeing this issue when the VM is not on the same host as the
> > > vrouter
> > > > > for its isolated network.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 6:40 AM Vivek Kumar
> > > > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hey Fuller,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What hypervisor are you using ? I know you have checked all
> > bandwidth
> > > > >> limit on templates and global settings, but it’s worth to check
> the
> > > QoS
> > > > on
> > > > >> the hypervisor level, because at the end it’s the hypervisor which
> > > > manages
> > > > >> all.  And from where are you trying to check the network
> throughout,
> > > > >> between client and server ?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Vivek Kumar
> > > > >> Sr. Manager - Cloud & DevOps
> > > > >> TechOps | Indiqus Technologies
> > > > >>
> > > > >> + 91 7503460090 <tel:++91+7503460090>
> > > > >>         [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> > > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> > > > >>         www.indiqus.com<http://www.indiqus.com><
> > > http://www.indiqus.com> <
> > > > https://www.indiqus.com/>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > On 28-Jun-2022, at 1:58 AM, S.Fuller <[email protected]
> > <mailto:
> > > [email protected]>> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Environment:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Two physical hosts
> > > > >> > - Cloudstack 4.11.3
> > > > >> > - Verified that there are no bandwidth limits in place on any of
> > the
> > > > >> > templates or in global settings.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Two isolated networks ("Client" and  "Server")
> > > > >> > - Each has a vrouter with a public and private address
> > > > >> > - One Windows 2016 VM on each network (running the latest virtio
> > > > >> drivers)
> > > > >> > - each node running latest version of Iperf3 to test throughput
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Testing/Observation:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > If the Client VM and the vrouter for the isolated Client network
> > are
> > > > on
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > same physical host, we see symmetrical throughput in the 2 Gbps
> > > range,
> > > > >> > whether we run iperf in regular mode or in reverse mode (iperf
> > -R).
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > If the Client VM and the vrouter for the isolated Client network
> > are
> > > > on
> > > > >> > different physical hosts, we are seeing 25% of the throughput
> > > running
> > > > >> iperf
> > > > >> > in regular mode vs running it in reverse mode.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Has anyone encountered this issue before? If we change the
> Client
> > VM
> > > > to
> > > > >> > Linux (either CentOS 7 or Ubuntu) OR we use the E1000 driver, we
> > see
> > > > >> > symmetrical throughput in our tests, no matter where the vrouter
> > is
> > > in
> > > > >> > relation to the Client VM.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > --
> > > > >> > Steve Fuller
> > > > >> > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or
> > entity
> > > to
> > > > >> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged
> > > > >> information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete
> > the
> > > > >> original message and any copy of it from your computer system. You
> > are
> > > > >> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
> > > this
> > > > >> communication is strictly prohibited unless proper authorization
> has
> > > > been
> > > > >> obtained for such action. If you have received this communication
> in
> > > > >> error,
> > > > >> please notify the sender immediately. Although IndiQus attempts to
> > > sweep
> > > > >> e-mail and attachments for viruses, it does not guarantee that
> both
> > > are
> > > > >> virus-free and accepts no liability for any damage sustained as a
> > > result
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> viruses.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Steve Fuller
> > > > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Steve Fuller
> > > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Steve Fuller
> > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Steve Fuller
> > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Steve Fuller
> > [email protected]
> >
>
>
> --
> Steve Fuller
> [email protected]
>


-- 
Steve Fuller
[email protected]

Reply via email to