From: Roman Yeryomin <leroi.lists@gmail.com>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net,
"codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
ath10k <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] iperf3 udp flood behavior at higher rates
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 11:02:14 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACiydbJGpyak1jCm+eqG=xez4wP4AFciYf5DvQCu4-8E7A_Xyw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw7uHvkKTUtXZqqWbDSWDxb=sZ+sfhdmMM1SZW3BsmZ1xA@mail.gmail.com>
On 3 May 2016 at 02:18, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> to fork the fq_codel_drop discussion a bit...
>
> I have up and running two new boxes[1] that are my hope to be able to
> test ath10k/ath9k hardware with, for this test, using one in the
> middle as a router and a nuc i3 box as the server, all ports pure
> ethernet... there's a switch in the way, too.
>
> On tcp via netperf I get expected ~940 mbits.
>
> On udp via iperf3 (again, all pure ethernet) - in neither case below
> am I seeing any drops in the qdisc itself anywhere on the path, yet am
> only achieving 500mbit.
That's interesting, I have no problems with UDP over ethernet.
What about TCP with iperf3?
> ?
>
> 1) Using the
>
> iperf3 -c 172.26.16.130 -u -b900M -R -l1472 -t600
>
> udp flood version, I get some loss on the initial burst, but none
> *reported* after that, and peak at about ~500Mbits.
>
> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter
> Lost/Total Datagrams
> [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 52.1 MBytes 437 Mbits/sec 0.037 ms
> 1276/38379 (3.3%)
> [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 54.3 MBytes 456 Mbits/sec 0.042 ms 0/38699 (0%)
> [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 56.1 MBytes 470 Mbits/sec 0.030 ms 0/39933 (0%)
>
> 2) Flipping the sense of the test by getting rid of -R (from the nuc)
>
> iperf3 -c 172.26.16.130 -u -b900M -l1472 -t600
>
> I get on the other side a steady state throughput of a little over
> 520mbits (with 41% loss reported consistently)
>
> [ 5] 37.00-38.00 sec 64.2 MBytes 539 Mbits/sec 0.026 ms
> 31613/77355 (41%)
> [ 5] 38.00-39.00 sec 62.8 MBytes 527 Mbits/sec 0.023 ms
> 31517/76255 (41%)
> [ 5] 39.00-40.00 sec 62.0 MBytes 520 Mbits/sec 0.033 ms
> 31052/75201 (41%)
>
> On the other:
>
> [ 4] 77.00-78.00 sec 111 MBytes 929 Mbits/sec 78915
> [ 4] 78.00-79.00 sec 103 MBytes 864 Mbits/sec 73371
> [ 4] 79.00-80.00 sec 108 MBytes 907 Mbits/sec 77034
> [ 4] 80.00-81.00 sec 107 MBytes 900 Mbits/sec 76423
> [ 4] 81.00-82.00 sec 104 MBytes 875 Mbits/sec 74277
> [ 4] 82.00-83.00 sec 113 MBytes 950 Mbits/sec 80666
>
>
> Thinking that perhaps I was seeing loss in the rx ring, I used ethtool
> to increase that from the default 256 to 4096...
>
> only to hang things thoroughly... :( and I'm watching things reboot now.
>
> Netperf does not have a multi-hop capable udp flood test (rick jones
> can explain why... )
>
> As I recall on this thread iperf3 was being run on a mac box as a
> client, and I'll dig one up - but was it also osx on the other side of
> the test?
>
> And what other params would I tweak on linux to see a udp flood go faster?
I would try making packets smaller (-l), maybe they are fragmented somewhere.
> Topology looks like this:
>
> apu1 <-> apu2 <-> switch <-> nuc.
>
> I could put another switch in the way, I am always nervous about
> invoking hw flow control...
>
> [1] http://www.pcengines.ch/apu2c4.htm
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-04 8:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-02 23:18 Dave Taht
2016-05-02 23:27 ` [Make-wifi-fast] [Codel] " Rick Jones
2016-05-03 0:07 ` Dave Taht
2016-05-04 8:02 ` Roman Yeryomin [this message]
2016-05-04 8:13 ` [Make-wifi-fast] " Roman Yeryomin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/make-wifi-fast.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CACiydbJGpyak1jCm+eqG=xez4wP4AFciYf5DvQCu4-8E7A_Xyw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=leroi.lists@gmail.com \
--cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=codel@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=dave.taht@gmail.com \
--cc=make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox