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

    Igb 2.4.0 causing crashes

    2.1.1 Snapshot Feedback and Problems - RETIRED
    9
    32
    10.5k
    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.
    • 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.