On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 07:50:32AM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> >I started from the latest backport you sent in september (0.42) and
> >incrementally applied 2.6 updates. I stopped at 0.50 which provides
> >VLAN support, because after this one, there are some 2.4-incompatible
> >changes (64bit consistent memory allocation for rings, and MSI/MSIX
> >support).
> >
> >
> >
> I agree, 2.4 needs a backport. Either a full backport as you did, or a
> minimal one-liner fix.
> Right now, the driver is not usable due to an incorrect initialization.
> Or to be more accurate:
> # modprobe
> # ifup
> works.
> But
> # modprobe
> # ifup
> # ifdown
> # ifup
> causes a misconfiguration, and the nic hangs hard after a few MB. And
> recent distros do the equivalent of ifup/ifdown/ifup somewhere in the
> initialization.
That's what I read in one of the changelogs, but I'm not sure at all that
it's what happened, because I had the problem after an ifup only. What I
was doing with this box was pure performance tests which drew me to compare
the broadcom and nforce performance. My tests measured 3 creteria :
- number of HTTP/1.0 hits/s
- maximum data rate
- maximum packets/s
on tg3, I got around 45 khits/s, 949 Mbps (TCP, =1.0 Gbps on wire) and
1.05 Mpps receive (I want to build a high speed load-balancer and a sniffer).
This was stable.
On the nforce, I tried with the hits/s first because it's a good indication
of hardware-based and driver-based optimizations. It reached 18 khits/s with
a lot of difficulty and the machine was stuck at 100% of one CPU. But it ran
for a few minutes like this. Then I tried data rate (which is the same test
with 1MB objects), and it failed after about 2 seconds and few megabytes (or
hundreds of megabytes) transferred.
I had to reboot to get it to work again. And I'm fairly sure that I did not
do down/up this time as well, but the test came to the same end.
That's why I'm not sure at all that the one-liner will be enough.
Moreover, after the update, I reached the same performance as with the
broadcom, with a slight improvement on packet reception (1.09 Mpps), and
low CPU usage (15%). So basically, the upgrade rendered the driver from
barely usable for SSH to very performant.
> Marcelo: Do you need a one-liner, or could you apply a large backport
> patch?
I would really vote for the full backport, and I can break it into pieces
if needed (I have them at hand, just have to re-inject the changelogs).
However, I have separate changes from 0.42 to 0.50, because I started
with your 0.30-0.42 backport patch.
I have this machine till the end of the week, so I can perform other tests
if you're interested in trying specific things.
> --
> Manfred
Cheers,
Willy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
