From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-iy0-f171.google.com (mail-iy0-f171.google.com [209.85.210.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 739132002DE for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:06:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iadj38 with SMTP id j38so11290447iad.16 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:06:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9mVM5mY9d76SwQqnDfe80J9sO1TOPTM5OEUyCayUT4Y=; b=03bRNLdCBZb+Gk1QDOFVOabUes+qH+9LaqIgAz5v3vjXgHvcywUdyYGd28FJD/tdpq m7srA1OTU0+CzvmA2SepNXlWOoUx11UokgyUA0sKlSko6ZH6pereHGcT/MEDmPYnmmk6 oS/pWFwJpfpPkrposOmeLrosAkF6+QOlp2/GhdPB3+gqAcxfNzDdMntk4hiZCzOMuZJF HkNI4Cm5rPT2ugb2VHyy317C2U91q7pWYUzCAJqlqddmBhKKPX72QNKVlcIc4cOx59ZE iRZEGF00t2IXph+1PQuQtc13+FZDREJYRIHu8QaNvfKZ4/h7y9LdCUupmgl5p0fVwzeU tO3A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.194.232 with SMTP id hz8mr1912401igc.38.1334437615239; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.147.67 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:06:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4F88C65C.80209@hp.com> References: <20120406213725.GA12641@uio.no> <20120406222138.GB12641@uio.no> <4F88C65C.80209@hp.com> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:06:55 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roger_J=F8rgensen?= To: Rick Jones Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] Best practices for paced TCP on Linux? X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:06:56 -0000 On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Rick Jones wrote: > On 04/06/2012 03:21 PM, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 02:49:38PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote: >>> However in your environment you will need the beefed up SFQ that is in >>> 3.3. >>> and BQL. If you are not saturating that 10GigE card, you can turn off >>> TSO/GSO >>> as well. >> We're not anywhere near saturating our 10GigE card, and even if we did, = we >> could add at least one 10GigE card more. > > TSO/GSO isn't so much about saturating the 10 GbE NIC as it is avoiding > saturating the CPU(s) driving the 10 GbE NIC. =A0That is, they save trips= down > the protocol stack, saving CPU cycles. =A0So, if you are not saturating o= ne or > more of the CPUs in the system, disabling TSO/GSO should not affect your > ability to drive bits out the NIC. What will happen in a virtual only environment when all the VM's got more than one 10Gbps and you push close to 10Gbps through each VM? like heavy iperf between lots of the VM's? Unless the platform does something that should start to saturate some of the CPU core's in the entire playform. ... kinda make me want to test it out since I got a 10Gbps only environment (Cisco UCS+Nexus5K) with VMware and there are not much production traffic there yet... --=20 Roger Jorgensen=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 | rogerj@gmail.com=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no=A0=A0 | roger@jorgensen.no