ndt-users - Re: gigabit slower than fast-e
Subject: ndt-users list created
List archive
- From: Jim Cotton <>
- To: Bill Abbott <>
- Cc: Matthew J Zekauskas <>,
- Subject: Re: gigabit slower than fast-e
- Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:53:59 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I have seen several Dell servers on campus that exhibited such a problem
with their on-board chipset.
There is a problem with the Broadcom chip set below a certain
revision... If you get the right driver it will work around it.
Jim Cotton
Bill Abbott wrote:
> I've tried tcp send and receive (max) buffers from 64k up to 8 MB, no
> improvement.
>
> Smaller buffers are more consistent, larger buffers tend to go up then
> hit zero, then climb again.
>
> The current settings are:
>
> $ cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_rmem
> 4096 87380 8174760
> $ cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_wmem
> 4096 16384 8131072
>
> I've also modified a bunch of other stuff, but it didn't make a
> difference so I set it back. ECN, /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_max and
> wmem_max, netdev_max_backlog, etc.
>
>
>
>
> Matthew J Zekauskas wrote:
>> To follow up to myself...
>>
>> * The Internet2 servers are all gigE, and all 9000-byte MTU capable.
>>
>> * Another thing you could do is tune for the bottleneck instead of
>> gigabit..
>>
>> 150 Mbps = 150*1000*1000 bits * 0.07 ms RTT = 10500000 bits
>> /8 = 1312500 bytes /(1024*1024) = 1.26 megabytes.
>>
>> or
>>
>> 100 Mbps is 850K
>>
>> and see if that improves things. It may be that something can't
>> handle even that much back-to-back when they are sent at 1000Mbps.
>>
>> There are also bwctl (<http://e2epi.internet2.edu/bwctl/>) servers at
>> Internet2 router nodes, for a different way to split the problem
>> (essentially run iperf to the core).
>>
>> --Matt
>>
>>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFH0OaH2MvRXu0NtoARAtTrAJ0Z+dDKVvI9i3SYAwIBPeUhu/KqZACgqk2H
RltkpeLYhKoJYkh0BlWF7Ow=
=V7Ah
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- gigabit slower than fast-e, abbott, 03/06/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Matthew J Zekauskas, 03/06/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Matthew J Zekauskas, 03/06/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Bill Abbott, 03/06/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Jim Cotton, 03/07/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Bill Abbott, 03/07/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Jim Cotton, 03/07/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Bill Abbott, 03/06/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Bill Abbott, 03/06/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Richard Carlson, 03/07/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Bill Abbott, 03/07/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Matt Mathis, 03/07/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Richard Carlson, 03/07/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Jeremy Schafer, 03/07/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Richard Carlson, 03/07/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Matt Mathis, 03/07/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Jeremy Schafer, 03/07/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Richard Carlson, 03/07/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Richard Carlson, 03/07/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Matthew J Zekauskas, 03/06/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Peter Van Epp, 03/06/2008
- Re: gigabit slower than fast-e, Matthew J Zekauskas, 03/06/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.