Re: TCP and BBR: reproducibly low cwnd and bandwidth

3 messages, 3 authors, 2018-02-16 · open the first message on its own page

Re: TCP and BBR: reproducibly low cwnd and bandwidth

From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date: 2018-02-16 16:43:14

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Neal Cardwell [off-list ref] wrote:
Oleksandr,

Thanks for the detailed report! Yes, this sounds like an issue in BBR. We
have not run into this one in our team, but we will try to work with you to
fix this.

Would you be able to take a sender-side tcpdump trace of the slow BBR
transfer ("v4.13 + BBR + fq_codel == Not OK")? Packet headers only would be
fine. Maybe something like:

  tcpdump -w /tmp/test.pcap -c1000000 -s 100 -i eth0 port $PORT

Thanks!
neal
On baremetal and using latest net tree, I get pretty normal results at
least, on 40Gbit NIC,
with pfifo_fast, fq and fq_codel.

# tc qd replace dev eth0 root fq
# ./super_netperf 1 -H lpaa24 -- -K cubic
  25627
# ./super_netperf 1 -H lpaa24 -- -K bbr
  25897
# tc qd replace dev eth0 root fq_codel
# ./super_netperf 1 -H lpaa24 -- -K cubic
  22246
# ./super_netperf 1 -H lpaa24 -- -K bbr
  25228
# tc qd replace dev eth0 root pfifo_fast
# ./super_netperf 1 -H lpaa24 -- -K cubic
  25454
# ./super_netperf 1 -H lpaa24 -- -K bbr
  25508

Re: TCP and BBR: reproducibly low cwnd and bandwidth

From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Date: 2018-02-16 16:46:18

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Eric Dumazet [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Neal Cardwell [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Oleksandr,

Thanks for the detailed report! Yes, this sounds like an issue in BBR. We
have not run into this one in our team, but we will try to work with you to
fix this.

Would you be able to take a sender-side tcpdump trace of the slow BBR
transfer ("v4.13 + BBR + fq_codel == Not OK")? Packet headers only would be
fine. Maybe something like:

  tcpdump -w /tmp/test.pcap -c1000000 -s 100 -i eth0 port $PORT

Thanks!
neal
On baremetal and using latest net tree, I get pretty normal results at
least, on 40Gbit NIC,
Eric raises a good question: bare metal vs VMs.

Oleksandr, your first email mentioned KVM VMs and virtio NICs. Your
second e-mail did not seem to mention if those results were for bare
metal or a VM scenario: can you please clarify the details on your
second set of tests?

Thanks!

Re: TCP and BBR: reproducibly low cwnd and bandwidth

From: Oleksandr Natalenko <hidden>
Date: 2018-02-16 17:00:24

Hi!

On pátek 16. února 2018 17:45:56 CET Neal Cardwell wrote:
Eric raises a good question: bare metal vs VMs.

Oleksandr, your first email mentioned KVM VMs and virtio NICs. Your
second e-mail did not seem to mention if those results were for bare
metal or a VM scenario: can you please clarify the details on your
second set of tests?
Ugh, so many letters simultaneously… I'll answer them one by one if you don't 
mind :).

Both the first and the second set of tests were performed on 2 KVM VMs, but 
from now I'll test everything using real HW only to exclude potential 
influence of virtualisation. Also, as I've already pointed out, on the real HW 
the difference is even bigger (~10 times).

Now, I'm going to answer other emails of yours, including the actual results 
from the real HW and tcpdump output as requested.

Thanks!

Regards,
  Oleksandr
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help