Jump to content
Калькуляторы

10G? 20G? 80G? На Линуксе? Реально Результаты тестов от гуру, англофонам

> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:38:27AM -0400, Bill Fink wrote:

>

> > We also achieved nearly 80 Gbps in bidirectional TCP tests (40 Gbps

> > simultaneously in each direction):

> >

> > [root@i7raid-1 ~]# ./nuttcp-6.2.6 -In2 -xc0/0 -p5001 192.168.1.11 & ./nuttcp-6.2.6 -In3 -r -xc0/0 -p5002 192.168.2.11 & ./nuttcp-6.2.6 -In4 -xc1/1 -p5003 192.168.3.11 & ./nuttcp-6.2.6 -In5 -r -xc1/1 -p5004 192.168.4.11 & ./nuttcp-6.2.6 -In6 -xc2/2 -p5005 192.168.5.11 & ./nuttcp-6.2.6 -In7 -r -xc2/2 -p5006 192.168.6.11 & ./nuttcp-6.2.6 -In8 -xc3/3 -p5007 192.168.7.11 & ./nuttcp-6.2.6 -In9 -r -xc3/3 -p5008 192.168.8.11

> > n2: 11542.6250 MB / 10.07 sec = 9619.9920 Mbps 44 %TX 51 %RX 0 retrans 0.12 msRTT

> > n3: 11543.7143 MB / 10.06 sec = 9622.2153 Mbps 41 %TX 49 %RX 0 retrans 0.15 msRTT

> > n4: 11622.8125 MB / 10.05 sec = 9701.0296 Mbps 43 %TX 51 %RX 0 retrans 0.10 msRTT

> > n5: 11523.6875 MB / 10.03 sec = 9638.8883 Mbps 43 %TX 50 %RX 0 retrans 0.15 msRTT

> > n6: 11608.0141 MB / 10.04 sec = 9695.7388 Mbps 43 %TX 50 %RX 0 retrans 0.10 msRTT

> > n7: 11580.1250 MB / 10.04 sec = 9679.3910 Mbps 43 %TX 50 %RX 0 retrans 0.13 msRTT

> > n8: 11608.0000 MB / 10.06 sec = 9678.7596 Mbps 42 %TX 50 %RX 0 retrans 0.10 msRTT

> > n9: 11553.3750 MB / 10.05 sec = 9643.7296 Mbps 45 %TX 50 %RX 0 retrans 0.11 msRTT

> >

> > This was using 2 dual-port 10-GigE NICs in the first two PCIe 2.0 slots.

> > We are using an Intel i7 965 quad-core 3.2 GHz Nehalem processor

> > (overclocked to 3.4 GHz) and 2000 MHz DDR3 memory. Adding an additional

> > dual-port 10-GigE NIC on the Nvidia N200 chip does only marginally

> > better, as it appears we are basically CPU limited at this point for

> > this test (the sum of the TX and RX CPU utilization for each pair of

> > 10-GigE interfaces is about 93%).

>

> Hey guys, those are really nice numbers. Since TCP splicing appeared in the

> kernel (once we got it fixed), I achieved 10 Gbps of HTTP proxying using

> haproxy with very low CPU usage (about 20% of a Core2Duo 2.66 GHz).

>

> Before buying the machines, I had been wandering around with the NICs

> donated by Myricom in order to try to find a machine capable of supporting

> this. My conclusion was that a lot of machines had difficulties getting

> above 3.5, 4.7 and 6.5 Gbps of output traffic (those 3 numbers were always

> the same, depending on the chipsets). There clearly was a bandwidth

> limitation imposed by the chipset.

>

> So I waited for the X38 and AM780FX chipsets to become available and

> bought 3 machines (1 C2D, 1 AMD X2, 1 AMD X4). Those ones have no problem

> with 10 Gbps of forwarded traffic (20 Gbps of total bus bandwidth), even

> with 1500 bytes frames, but I don't know how high they can go, maybe

> they will saturate slightly above.

>

> Unfortunately, I only have 5 NICs in 3 machines and no switch (and CX4

> is hard to find these days), so I'm probably stuck at 10 Gbps max.

>

> Interestingly, I had the impression that forwarding data with TCP

> splicing costs less CPU than IP forwarding, because the NICs can do

> LRO.

>

> Also, I know a french service provider who uses haproxy on Core i7

> machines and who has already reached 5 Gbps of sustained traffic

> with recent intel dual-port NICs (though I'm not sure exactly which

> ones). This is with very little CPU usage too, less than 2-3% user

> and 15% system+softirq. On previous machines (quad core xeons), it

> was impossible to go beyond 3 Gbps, it looked like the chipset was

> the limitating factor too (though I don't precisely remember which

> one it was).

>

> I really blamed the NICs because this guys machine was about 4 times

> more powerful than mine, but apparently it was just a chipset issue.

>

> I also happen to have a customer who recently received a few Sun NXGE,

> mounted in Sun x2100-m2 using an nvidia chipset which I tested OK at

> 10 Gbps with my myri10GE NICs. I'll try to see if I can run some tests

> there, as Davem once said those NICs are really good too.

>

> All in all, I find it really cool that our beloved OS scales that

> well with the hardware :-)

 

Yes, I am quite impressed that the Linux kernel and TCP/IP network

stack performs amazingly well at these multi-10-GigE speeds. I was

especially interested in Jesper's IP forwarding results, as we haven't

tested that yet ourselves, and one of the intended applications of

these systems is as a multi-10-GigE firewall, so that's looking very

encouraging at this point.

 

 

Источник http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/17/257

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

опять кони в вакууме.

кот, давай статью "мы внедрили в продакшн мульти-10-гбе роутер с до#%$ правил, шейперов, ната, пару-тройку фулвью и т.д. и он показал вайрспид. автор - Д'артаньян. (все вендоры пидорасы)"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

У меня нет таких скоростей. К сожалению не на чем практиковаться...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Тест какой-то неграмотный. Во-первых, пропускная способность роутера измеряется в пакетах в секунду, а не в битах в секунду. Во-вторых, нагрузка создается не только из-за пакетрейта, а из-за большого числа одновременных соединений, затрат на QoS, на стейты в iptables и много еще чего. Я думаю, что хороший тест должен не измерять какие-то предельные величины в отсутствие полезной нагрузки, а выявлять узкие места в подсистемах ядра. Т.е. надо проводить измерения включая и выключая разные функции: шейпинг, statefull inspection в iptables, большое число маршрутов в таблице. А эти сферические гигабиты в вакууме никому не нужны.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

photon - Насчет неграмотности я бы поостерегся, его проводили очень известные разработчики. Ставить под сомнение их грамотность и учить "как надо делать" - нужно обладать очень весомой репутацией. Иначе это просто отличный способ получить испортить карму с вашими 66-ю постами.

 

И выявляли там максимальную пропускную способность шин,карт и системы в целом, какой поток данных система может пропустить, задача измерить pps в роутинге не стояла. Т.е. тестировались определенные подсистемы, а не система как роутер.

К слову там написано, что в частности система работала как tcp proxy (через haproxy), и отдавала 10G как http proxy (видимо планируется как балансер+HA для каких-то сайтов).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Карма есть в индуизме и соц. сетях, а не на форумах IPB. Если эти тесты не задумывались для провайдерских целей, ну и черт с ними.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40⋅10^9/(1514⋅8)=3.3 Mpps в каждую сторону, так вроде получается

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Что-то я не очень понял на каких чипсетах было 3.5, 4.7 and 6.5 Gbps лимит, обясните плиз.

Еще очень страно что пропускная способность х58 для нахелема больше серверных решений :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Я правильно понял, на (1 C2D, 1 AMD X2, 1 AMD X4) используя одну 10гб карту удалось создать трафик в 40гигабит? А принимающая сторона была в шушпанчиках или трафик закольцовывался на вторую карту???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this