Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Igb 2.4.0 causing crashes

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved 2.1.1 Snapshot Feedback and Problems - RETIRED
    32 Posts 9 Posters 10.5k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • J
      jasonlitka
      last edited by

      So the good news is that it's not crashing any more.

      The bad news is that I still seem to be hitting a pretty hard wall at ~2.1Gbit/s across 10Gb ix interfaces.

      I can break anything.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • E
        eri--
        last edited by

        You need to do tuning for that.
        It depends on traffic amount you are generating, what you are using to generate traffic etc…

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • J
          jasonlitka
          last edited by

          @ermal:

          You need to do tuning for that.
          It depends on traffic amount you are generating, what you are using to generate traffic etc…

          I've applied the same tweaks I had done to my (now defunct) FreeNAS servers with no luck.  Those boxes had slower CPUs and were able to hit ~5-6Gbit/s between each other. Testing is with iperf.

          If you have any specific tweaks in mind I'll definitely give them a go.

          I can break anything.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • E
            eri--
            last edited by

            Start by sharing what you are doing!

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • K
              Klaws
              last edited by

              You might contemplate to check if you are CPU-bound or if something else is the issue.

              top -SH
              ```usually gives an idea where the CPU time goes.
              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • J
                jasonlitka
                last edited by

                @ermal:

                Start by sharing what you are doing!

                Hardware Specs (both boxes are identical):

                • Intel E3-1245 V2 CPU (3.4GHz) w/ HT disabled

                • 16GB DDR3 ECC RAM

                • Intel 530 240GB SSD

                • (12) Intel i350 1Gbe

                • (2) Intel X520 10Gbe

                Software Config:

                • iperf tests running across ix1 (have tried both SFP+ Direct Attach and Single-Mode OM3 patch with Intel SR optics directly between boxes, as well as running through a Cisco Nexus 5548UP)

                • Interface has simple any/any firewall rule

                • Snort is NOT running on these interfaces (though it is on others)

                Tweaks in /boot/loader.conf.local:

                • kern.ipc.nmbclusters="262144"

                • kern.ipc.nmbjumbop="262144"

                • hw.intr_storm_threshold=10000

                Setting MSIX on or off seems to make no difference and neither does setting the number of interface queues (have tried 1, 2, and 4).

                Tweaks in System Tunables:

                • kern.ipc.maxsockbuf=16777216

                • net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_inc=524288

                • net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_max=16777216

                • net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_inc=16384

                • net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_max=16777216

                Test Results (always +/- 2 Gbit/s, sometimes 1.8, sometimes 2.2):

                • iperf -c & -s = 2Gbit/s

                • iperf -c -d & -s = sum of both directions is 2Gbit/s (typically something like 1.8 and 0.2)

                • iperf -c -P2 & -s = sum of both threads is 2Gbit/s (typically something like 1.3 & 0.7)

                • iperf -c -P4 & -s = sum of all threads is 2Gbit/s (typically +/- 0.5 on each)

                All 4 cores have an idle percentage in the 40-50% range even when running at the -P4 test.

                I can break anything.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • E
                  eri--
                  last edited by

                  You are sourcing traffic from the same box?

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • J
                    jasonlitka
                    last edited by

                    I have two identical boxes.  For the purpose of testing throughput (before I route all the internal traffic from my servers through them) I have them connected directly to each other.

                    I can break anything.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • E
                      eri--
                      last edited by

                      Well your result may vary here from the tool used.
                      Since there are many cores your program may bounce here and there so i do not think you can achieve stable results as that.

                      What i recommend you for ix devices is

                      
                      hw.ixgbe.rx_process_limit=1024 #maybe higher or lower depends on testing
                      hw.ixgbe.tx_process_limit=1024
                      
                      hw.ixgbe.num_queues=#ofcores you have
                      
                      hw.ixgbe.txd=4096
                      hw.ixgbe.rxd=4096
                      
                      

                      Though these are very dependant on the workload you are trying to produce.

                      Also with single stream i am not sure with default parameters of iperf you can achieve 10G :).

                      Also remove this as well
                      hw.intr_storm_threshold=10000

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • C
                        charliem
                        last edited by

                        @ermal:

                        Give it another shot with new snapshots.

                        The panics have been resolved and let us know.

                        Any pointers to what the fix actually was?  I didn't see anything in redmine, or freebsd patches.  Course I haven't jumped through the hoops followed through to get access to the tools again.  Not sure it's worth it for a non-contributor, but active tester and curious code reader.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • A
                          adam65535
                          last edited by

                          You are overthinking the fix I think.  I think the fix he is referring to is that thy reverted the drivers to the older versions.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • E
                            eri--
                            last edited by

                            Actually the drivers are the latest found in FreeBSD.

                            The fix was involved in correcting the handling of the interface in FreeBSD 8 which is a bit of a mix compared to later ones.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • J
                              jasonlitka
                              last edited by

                              @ermal:

                              Well your result may vary here from the tool used.
                              Since there are many cores your program may bounce here and there so i do not think you can achieve stable results as that.

                              What i recommend you for ix devices is

                              
                              hw.ixgbe.rx_process_limit=1024 #maybe higher or lower depends on testing
                              hw.ixgbe.tx_process_limit=1024
                              
                              hw.ixgbe.num_queues=#ofcores you have
                              
                              hw.ixgbe.txd=4096
                              hw.ixgbe.rxd=4096
                              
                              

                              Though these are very dependant on the workload you are trying to produce.

                              Also with single stream i am not sure with default parameters of iperf you can achieve 10G :).

                              Also remove this as well
                              hw.intr_storm_threshold=10000

                              Thanks, I'll give those a try tomorrow.

                              It's not so much the single stream performance I'm worried about.  It's more the fact that 2 or 4 threads produce the exact same throughput in aggregate but it doesn't appear that I'm CPU bound.

                              I can break anything.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • E
                                eri--
                                last edited by

                                Also check to disable aim(auto interrupt moderation) since that migh limit your throughput as well.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • J
                                  jasonlitka
                                  last edited by

                                  I added:

                                  hw.ix.rx_process_limit=1024
                                  hw.ix.tx_process_limit=1024
                                  hw.ix.txd=4096
                                  hw.ix.rxd=4096

                                  For a single thread this made zero difference; I still see just about 2 Gbit/s.  With 4 threads it now hits somewhere between 3.3-4.0Gbit/s (very inconsistent).  Single-threaded bidirectional tests (-c -d & -s) hit about 3Gbit/s and dual-threaded bidirectional tests hit around 4Gbit/s (-c -d -P2 & -s).  For some reason trying to use 4 threads on a bidirectional test makes iperf segfault so I can't try that.

                                  Reverting hw.intr_storm_threshold to the default of 1000 made no difference (I changed this in FreeNAS to get past ~2.5Gbit/s, if memory serves, assumed the same would be required here since it's mentioned in the pfSense Wiki Docs).

                                  Disabling AIM with setting dev.ix.0.enable_aim & dev.ix.1.enable_aim to "0" also didn't have any impact.

                                  I can break anything.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • First post
                                    Last post
                                  Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.