Hi Joe,
With sudo lspci -vvv you will see the capabilties, including the low-level
PCIe bus speed and link count negotiation of the devices. The sudo is needed
to get the low-level LnkCap and LnkCtl bits:
For a 16-lane videocard on a laptop here, likely soldered right on the
motherboard:
The PCIe capabilities: 8 GT/sec, max 16 lanes:
LnkCap: Port #0, Speed 8GT/s, Width x16, ASPM L0s L1, Exit
Latency L0s <1us, L1 <4us
ClockPM+ Surprise- LLActRep- BwNot- ASPMOptComp+
What the speed ended up to be 8GT/sec, 16 lanes:
LnkCtl: ASPM Disabled; RCB 64 bytes Disabled- CommClk+
ExtSynch- ClockPM- AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt-
LnkSta: Speed 8GT/s, Width x16, TrErr- Train- SlotClk+
DLActive- BWMgmt- ABWMgmt-
DevCap2: Completion Timeout: Range AB, TimeoutDis+, LTR+, OBFF
Via message
DevCtl2: Completion Timeout: 50us to 50ms, TimeoutDis-, LTR+,
OBFF Disabled
Below is a variant of the LnkCtl record, providing even more information on
even the equalisation of the
SERDES link that is used by this PCIe device: (equalisation is the analog RF
signal processing to overcome
losses while routing the signal over the motherboard and the connectors):
LnkCtl2: Target Link Speed: 8GT/s, EnterCompliance- SpeedDis-
Transmit Margin: Normal Operating Range,
EnterModifiedCompliance- ComplianceSOS-
Compliance De-emphasis: -6dB
LnkSta2: Current De-emphasis Level: -6dB,
EqualizationComplete+, EqualizationPhase1+
EqualizationPhase2+, EqualizationPhase3+,
LinkEqualizationRequest-
Above could be regarded as a 'depth first' approach for those who would like to
stay purely software-oriented.
I like to treat a PC in such scenario as an embedded system, first get the
powersupplies, clocks and other
hardware right, design the clockdomains and datarates, then gradually move up
the software/control/kernel/driver
stack to verify for anomalies that could trigger such intermittent problems.
Mark-Jan
On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 10:40:39AM -0700, Joe Martin wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> I am intrigued by your response and have obtained a tree view for my system
> as you suggested to Paul. I???m unfamiliar with the tree view and don???t
> understand how to check the number of PCIe lanes that are available to the
> disk controller and disks and how to check how many PCIe bridges are in
> between on my motherboard configuration.
>
> I have a screenshot of the tree view showing my 10G ethernet connection (but
> it is 220KB in size so I didn???t attach it here) but I am not familiar with
> how to determine what you asked about from the tree and what to do about the
> configuration in any case. Is the configuration fixed and not changeable, in
> any case?
>
> If so, then perhaps your alternative suggestion regarding booting from a USB
> stick into a ramdisk is a viable route? I???m unfortunately not familiar
> with the details of how to do that so perhaps a couple of brief comments
> about implementing that process would help me understand better if that???s
> the only viable alternative to pursue given the present hardware
> configuration?
>
> Joe
>
> > On Mar 9, 2019, at 5:14 AM, Mark-Jan Bastian via USRP-users
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > I can record from the X310 to disk to nvme x4 PCIe at 800 MB/sec
> > for a few minutes. There is still a risk of O 's appearing.
> >
> > First thing to check is the number of PCIe lanes available to the disk
> > controller and disks, and how many and which PCIe bridges are in between
> > on your motherboard configuration. Try to avoid other traffic over these
> > PCIe bridges. lspci -vt for a tree view.
> >
> > Then one can do benchmarking from DRAM to disk. Perhaps you will not need
> > a filesystem for your very simple storage purpose.
> > You can ultimately just boot from some other media (USB stick or CD-ROM
> > loaded into a ramdisk) just to make sure there is absolute no need to
> > read-access any other data on said disks, via cached pages or otherwise.
> >
> > Hickups by system management mode or other unexpected driver interrupt
> > sources
> > should be minimized. Other networking code and chatter might need be
> > reduced,
> > just as SMM related thermal management events in the BIOS.
> > First tune everthing for maximum performance, then optimize for very
> > constant
> > write performance.
> >
> > Mark-Jan
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 12:32:05PM +0100, Paul Boven via USRP-users wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm trying to record the full X310 bandwidth, for a few hours, without any
> >> missed samples. Which of course is a bit of a challenge - does anyone here
> >> already achieve this?
> >>
> >> We're using a TwinRX, so initially I wanted to record 2x 100MS/s (from both
> >> channels), which amounts to 800MB/s, 6.4Gb/s. At first I tried
> >> uhd_rx_cfile,
> >> but have been unable to get it to a good state without showing an 'O' every
> >> few seconds at these speeds.
> >>
> >> As a recorder I have a SuperMicro 847 chassis with 36 disks (Seagate
> >> Ironwolf 8TB T8000VN0022, 7200rpm). In this particular server, the disks
> >> are
> >> connected through an 'expander' backplane, from a single HBA (LSI 3008).
> >> CPU
> >> is dual Xeon 4110, 2.1 GHz, 64 GB of ram.
> >>
> >> At first I tried a 6 disk pool (raidz1), and eventually ended up creating a
> >> huge 36 disk ZFS stripe, which in theory should have no trouble with the
> >> throughput, but certainly kept dropping packets.
> >>
> >> Note that recording to /dev/shm/file works perfectly without dropping
> >> packets, until the point that the memory is full.
> >>
> >> Given that ZFS has quite a bit of (good) overhead to safeguard your data, I
> >> then switched to creating a mdadm raid-0 with 18 of the disks (Why not 36?
> >> I
> >> was really running out of time!)
> >>
> >> At that point I also found 'specrec' from gr-analyze, which seems more
> >> suitable. But, even after enlarging its circular buffer to the largest
> >> supported values, it would only average a write speed of about 300MB/s.
> >>
> >> In the end I had to settle for recording at only 50MS/s (200MB/s) from only
> >> a single channel, a far cry from the 2x 6.4Gb/s I'm ultimately looking to
> >> record. Although I did get more than an hour of perfect data out of it,
> >> over
> >> time the circular buffer did get fuller in bursts, and within 2 hours it
> >> exited due to exhausting the buffers. Restarting the application made it
> >> work like fresh again, with the same gradual decline
> >> in performance.
> >>
> >> Specrec, even when tweaking its settings, doesn't really take advantage of
> >> the large amount of memory in the server. As a next step, I'm thinking of
> >> adapting specrec to use much larger buffers, so that writes are at least in
> >> the range of MB to tens of MB. From earlier experiences, it is also
> >> important to flush your data to disk often, so the interruptions due to
> >> this
> >> are more frequent, but short enough to not cause receive buffers to
> >> overflow.
> >>
> >> In terms of network tuning, all recording was done with MTU 9000, with wmem
> >> and rmem at the recommended values. All recordings were done as interleaved
> >> shorts.
> >>
> >> Does anyone have hints or experiences to share?
> >>
> >> Regards, Paul Boven.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> USRP-users mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > USRP-users mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
> >
>
_______________________________________________
USRP-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
