perfsonar-user - Re: [perfsonar-user] Strange performance results - AT&T VPLS circuit
Subject: perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion
List archive
- From: Jim Warner <>
- To: Jared Schlemmer <>, "" <>
- Subject: Re: [perfsonar-user] Strange performance results - AT&T VPLS circuit
- Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 11:37:42 -0700
- Ironport-phdr: 9a23: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
Some additional information -- The Ciena 3930 manual first edition came out in October 2012. Five years ago, the best single chip switch
had either 9 MB (broadcom) or 9.5 MB (intel/fulcrum) of packet memory. The 70 Watt power consumption of the switch would not support anything
more elaborate than single chip switch. The ciena data sheets don't list packet memory in their specs.
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Jason Zurawski <> wrote:
Hey Jared;
TSO/LRO basically tries to unburden the CPU by making the NIC work a little harder (e.g. the CPU passes larger data chunks, the NIC splits them into network friendly bites). Usually a good idea to have these for LAN based things, sometimes causes problems on the WAN though.
Not all NICs let you mess with the settings, some do via ethtool:
https://fasterdata.es.net/host-tuning/nic-tuning/
E.g. "ethtool -K $INTERFACE tso off"
Turning off/on and running some quick tests will let you know - its more art than science unfortunately.
Thanks;
-jason
Jared Schlemmer wrote:
Thank you Brent. The multiples of 32 is a good observation. I’m not terrible familiar with TSO/LRO and its impact - is this something that can be tuned to lessen the impact, real or perceived, in the tests?Jared SchlemmerNetwork Engineer, GlobalNOC at Indiana University
On Jul 31, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Brent Draney <> wrote:I notice that you are loosing a multiple of 32. This suggests that some combination of TSO/LRO may be at playand the test may be getting perturbed by the nic offload masking some of the real counter drops. You may havea smaller drop rate than this counter suggests.
Thanks,Brent
On Jul 31, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Eli Dart <> wrote:
Hi Jared,
My first guess is that the latency between Monterey and Sunnyvale is low enough that the test is able to recover even with that packet loss. I'll bet that a lot of the traffic that is seeing performance impact is traveling further.
Can you try a test from Monterey to Chicago or Monterey to New York? (or to someplace else more than 20 milliseconds away?)
Thanks,
Eli
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Jared Schlemmer <> wrote:
We just turned up a new network endpoint that connects to an existing aggregation site via a 1gb AT&T VPLS connection and I’m seeing some interesting performance results. The sites are Monterey Bay and Sunnyvale, CA. Tests from Sunnyvale to Monterey Bay are good, but the reverse direction, Monterey Bay toward Sunnyvale, I see this:
Connecting to host port 5332
[ 16] local port 58534 connected to port 5332
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd
[ 16] 0.00-1.00 sec 110 MBytes 0.92 Gbits/sec 0 1.16 MBytes
[ 16] 1.00-2.00 sec 113 MBytes 0.95 Gbits/sec 64 553 KBytes
[ 16] 2.00-3.00 sec 111 MBytes 0.93 Gbits/sec 32 498 KBytes
[ 16] 3.00-4.00 sec 112 MBytes 0.94 Gbits/sec 32 434 KBytes
[ 16] 4.00-5.00 sec 112 MBytes 0.94 Gbits/sec 32 362 KBytes
[ 16] 5.00-6.00 sec 112 MBytes 0.94 Gbits/sec 0 669 KBytes
[ 16] 6.00-7.00 sec 112 MBytes 0.94 Gbits/sec 32 622 KBytes
[ 16] 7.00-8.00 sec 111 MBytes 0.93 Gbits/sec 32 574 KBytes
[ 16] 8.00-9.00 sec 112 MBytes 0.94 Gbits/sec 32 519 KBytes
[ 16] 9.00-10.00 sec 112 MBytes 0.94 Gbits/sec 32 458 KBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
[ 16] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.09 GBytes 0.94 Gbits/sec 288 sender
[ 16] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.09 GBytes 0.93 Gbits/sec receiver
My questions are, a) how is it that we see retries and such a small window size and yet still get near line-rate throughput, and b) what is the real world impact of a test like this? Users at the Monterey site are reporting wildly varying performance out to the internet.
There are likely a lot of factors going on here, but I wanted to focus just on the testing between these two sites through the AT&T cloud. Any insights, theories or suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks,
Jared Schlemmer
Network Engineer, GlobalNOC at Indiana University
--
Eli Dart, Network Engineer NOC: (510) 486-7600
ESnet Science Engagement Group (800) 333-7638Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Strange performance results - AT&T VPLS circuit, Brent Draney, 07/31/2017
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Strange performance results - AT&T VPLS circuit, Jared Schlemmer, 08/02/2017
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Strange performance results - AT&T VPLS circuit, Jason Zurawski, 08/02/2017
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Strange performance results - AT&T VPLS circuit, Jim Warner, 08/02/2017
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Strange performance results - AT&T VPLS circuit, Jason Zurawski, 08/02/2017
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.