Thread (1 message) 1 message, 1 author, 2012-09-05
  • (off-list ancestor, not in this archive)
  • Re: IPoIB performance · Atchley, Scott <hidden> · 2012-09-05

Re: IPoIB performance

From: Atchley, Scott <hidden>
Date: 2012-09-05 17:59:23

On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Reeted wrote:
On 08/29/12 21:35, Atchley, Scott wrote:
quoted
Hi all,

I am benchmarking a sockets based application and I want a sanity check on IPoIB performance expectations when using connected mode (65520 MTU).....
I have read that with newer cards the datagram (unconnected) mode is 
faster at IPoIB than connected mode. Do you want to check?
I have read that the latency is lower (better) but the bandwidth is lower.

Using datagram mode limits the MTU to 2044 and the throughput to ~3 Gb/s on these machines/cards. Connected mode at the same MTU performs roughly the same. The win in connected mode comes with larger MTUs. With a 9000 MTU, I see ~6 Gb/s. Pushing the MTU to 655120 (the maximum for ipoib), I can get ~13 Gb/s.
What benchmark program are you using?
netperf with process binding (-T). I tune sysctl per the DOE FasterData specs:

http://fasterdata.es.net/host-tuning/linux/

Scott--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help