Re: Nehalem network performance

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 14:59 -0500, Kelvin Ku wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:22:05PM +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> > > which
> > > was throttling the CPUs to 1.6 GHz (from a maximum of 2.4 GHz). I attempted to
> > > remedy this by setting InterruptThrottleRate=0,0 in the e1000e driver, after
> > > which we had one full day of testing with zero rx_missed_errors, but the
> > > application still reported packet loss.
> > 
> > rx_missed_error usually get triggered when the kernel is slow to handle
> > incoming hardware interrupts.
> > There's a trade-off here, increase the interrupt rate and you'll
> > increase the kernel CPU usage as the expense of lower latency - decrease
> > the interrupt rate, and you'll reduce the CPU usage at the expense of a
> > higher chance of hitting the RX queue limit.
> > I'd suggest you try setting the InterruptThrottleRate to 1000, while
> > increasing the RX queues to 4096.
> > (sbin/ethtool -G DEVICE rx 4096)
> > 
> > You could try enabling multi-queue by adding IntterruptType=2,
> > RSS=NUM_OF_QUEUE and MQ=1 to your modprobe.conf.d.
> 
> I'll try these suggestions later today. Note that I was able to disable
> interrupt throttling on the on-board 82574L NICs without seeing any
> rx_missed_errors.

Did it help?

> 
> > 
> > Can you post the output of $ mpstat -P 1 ALL during peak load?
> > 
> 
> We run "mpstat -P 5 ALL" continuously; is this sufficient resolution? I've
> attached the mpstat output from the 09:30-10:30 yesterday, which is one of the
> busiest hours of the day for multicast traffic.

~15'000 interrupts/core seems rather high to me - especially considering
the fact that this is a 1GbE link.
Reducing the InterruptThrottleRate to 1000/5000 while increasing the
queue count (ethtool -G ... rx ...) should decrease it.


> Also, here is the top of the output from powertop. Are you running with C-STATE
> enabled? It is somewhat troubling that more than half of the time is spent in
> the most power-saving state (C3), but I think this is averaged across all CPUs.

I usually disable power management.
Be advised, that we are using 10GbE cards and not 1GbE, so we are more
vulnerable to
scaling-the-core-down-right-when-the-cards-starts-flooding-the-hell-out-of-it...

P.S. Please post your complete hardware configuration. (Board, CPU,
in-which slot did you put the NIC, etc)

- Gilboa

-- 
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux