From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com (mail-pa0-f49.google.com [209.85.220.49]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B105A06 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 00:28:40 +0100 (CET) Received: by pasz6 with SMTP id z6so32508560pas.2 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:28:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber_org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Z+il2GId2eK0N0N6bj4fQ4SieDmgD5mBZcSE7Gzq5S0=; b=eiwxBentE9A3np589YICIPoxx1VwaszO8uS7hie9oIT8pW2yKyr7yVn3E2TDdCnNcg H9YzDy5e8npDZGZcdwyBC6Wk2orbYtTZmK0th4Mg/WNAG8EubVbGdiqU9F3LQLZV1mL8 yPpLy9Z///0uOMlmo2UFMJrPxCLy5ufZrNcsWSKQAH/BXfHmI7qTRmBUCDoUhaM/mHFN WZdBAYx78yXQ0GPFj3q4zVUKEnyQMhkgm4MxVyXBwXsfuaZZY7cUiSLRJXbP/W/EuGvP RVuPiZE7JY7W91me8JM08OE8YUbwFC4bDo2hbURW25j0Hb+51RXqK4DsgI0MUQq22WRm QJig== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Z+il2GId2eK0N0N6bj4fQ4SieDmgD5mBZcSE7Gzq5S0=; b=KK5GtUdpIVNyR0dh2QF8XtFzSR4mWOn1nZaxk5ctD38LN4JUQ162PAChkDAnItEaoE XKnqZMR3J28uZ7lq6z8p94jgKC5QUuPmD+iWi+Fs4xuVAZAsXHZ+CGfZEJL4vml5Z3Ba 55qLAUTX+WNA8aFFmbnc/yluBAjz15CO0lVjmstW7R51MbdL6scqcOnaNRHYswnqenao yOfoOipiZ8i2WKqQhGSvC1h5z+Zaznzs0sozPgK9iWEfM88+3bVAKSrtYbL+NcmRPHPp xf/AITo9hIV5htbLNb8euGF6VBJEh9Kyt2LE3JV4ehiYpiv868VXmtmLBtnlLlBRsqMi 9VNw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk4xCpEOFVYDMez1oIeBEKNi/678g22V9lhwls6cNZUDvbA4vxhvBLKIN8grlLipUqWwMe7 X-Received: by 10.66.235.71 with SMTP id uk7mr36097447pac.3.1446593319918; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:28:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from xeon-e3 (static-50-53-82-155.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net. [50.53.82.155]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ux3sm31586624pac.18.2015.11.03.15.28.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:28:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:28:50 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Kyle Larose Message-ID: <20151103152850.3e23f639@xeon-e3> In-Reply-To: References: <514E811C-1D85-4BB7-AA9C-C5D2B2ED6043@intel.com> <20151103140531.677eee6d@xeon-e3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] How can I calculate/estimate pps(packet per seocond) and bps(bit per second) in DPDK pktg X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 23:28:40 -0000 On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:18:31 -0500 Kyle Larose wrote: > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Stephen Hemminger > wrote: > > > > > IMHO this is a bug. Other drivers don't include the CRC, and the Intel driver > > only includes CRC in count for one direction, and depends on value of stripping flag. > > > > I sent a patch to fix this because our customers didn't like it when Rx != Tx bytes > > but there was somebody who liked including CRC. > > > > It really is a Cisco versus the world thing. Juniper/Linux/BSD all do NOT include > > CRC in counters and therefore that is what should be done. > > > > Another option is to make whether or not the NIC counts the CRC in its > byte counters configurable, when supported, and also retrievable. I'm > concerned about the case where a NIC doesn't even have an option to > control whether or not it counts the CRC, and it *does* count it. In > that case, any software running on that NIC will behave > inconsistently. If it knew that it counted the CRC, it could adjust > for it. No. configuration is the enemy of usability. Why does DPDK have to behave differently than BSD and Linux, what possible value could this be to the end user? > If we put the option in now, then software written now could deal with > it gracefully. Combined with the ability to configure it, this may > satisfy use cases where knowing the full frame size is useful (for > example when looking at bit rates with small packets. 4 bytes is a big > difference for a 64-byte frame). > > Of course, this may not be a problem worth solving. But, I figure it's > worth considering.