Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

ConnectX: Review N*SQ 64B transmit performance #1006

Closed
2 tasks
lukego opened this issue Sep 1, 2016 · 1 comment
Closed
2 tasks

ConnectX: Review N*SQ 64B transmit performance #1006

lukego opened this issue Sep 1, 2016 · 1 comment
Labels
mellanox

Comments

@lukego
Copy link
Member

lukego commented Sep 1, 2016 •
edited
Loading

OBSOLETE. See #1007 instead.

Following on from #1004 I have prepared a benchmark report for sending 64B packets on 100G ConnectX-4 using an optimized "packetblaster" routine on one CPU core. Results are between 6 and 62 Mpps.

download 1

The performance seems to depend primarily on the number of Send Queues and on their queue sizes. See the link above for more details.

  • Do these results look approximately correct? (Cross-check with results elsewhere.)
  • Check that CPU is not the limiting factor on the fastest results.
@lukego lukego added the mellanox label Sep 1, 2016
@lukego lukego changed the title ConnectX: Receive N*SQ 64B transmit performance ConnectX: Review N*SQ 64B transmit performance Sep 1, 2016
@lukego lukego mentioned this issue Sep 2, 2016
Open
@lukego
Copy link
Member Author

lukego commented Sep 2, 2016

Superceded by #1007.

@lukego lukego closed this as completed Sep 2, 2016
@lukego lukego mentioned this issue Sep 16, 2016
Open
mwiget pushed a commit to mwiget/snabb that referenced this issue Jan 27, 2018
@dpino
Merge pull request snabbco#1006 from dpino/rework-alarms-timestamp
ddaed84 
Rework alarms timestamping logic
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
mellanox
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@lukego