[dpdk-users] Minimal dpdk configuration for 2 hosts

[dpdk-users] Minimal dpdk configuration for 2 hosts

[dawid_jurek]

Hello,
I wonder what is the minimal configuration (in sense on number of NIC ports) to run basic dpdk examples like
basicfwd, rxtx_callbacks or forwarding by testpmd for 2 hosts connected directly by Ethernet.
Is it possible to perform one directional transmission for some kind of sender-reciever scenario (2 hosts, every host with one port)?
It seems that for every kind of transmission between 2 machines I need at least 4 ports
(because every port may take care of TX or RX but not both of them at the same time).
Is it correct?
Regards,
Dawid
From harold.demure87@gmail.com  Sun Mar  6 10:30:52 2016
Return-Path: <harold.demure87@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-vk0-f48.google.com (mail-vk0-f48.google.com
 [209.85.213.48]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F4A2C4F
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Sun,  6 Mar 2016 10:30:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-vk0-f48.google.com with SMTP id e6so91661299vkh.2
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Sun, 06 Mar 2016 01:30:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s 120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :cc; bh=mno1kfIowkJc6iaRngy5AYRLaMvbF4YcwG/Jj4PDOE0=;
 b=ZOYix/l+0pJx7uDl3eHaDHdPB31Xj329+l8blkSCVKU4UbdZ1VxSrCHEp14NGuSMXv
 y3sXuDlklALNhR9RMPAOmVObcAomdow+V221Xmod1b5l8my+9szdXX1AMkPn4yfChgvS
 +Y23r5/IILI2SKDOlCe4gmcURVxYthByTCjTdL+/WVzhQo4e05SiZnWdH4a4Jzy7OBcl
 5qT/o8cyXFPUhGzHsciec/k0kuch2HGL/ppQc3N17J5H5nbqwusas+FdY5oSBXAvSl2A
 Moa7dg62v9ffkDRp0Ayhk8f+KNROmnGExtXqL3Etdf1hHV2JH5eMDVIcpan2fzNLypob
 /TUg=X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d\x1e100.net; s 130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
 :message-id:subject:from:to:cc;
 bh=mno1kfIowkJc6iaRngy5AYRLaMvbF4YcwG/Jj4PDOE0=;
 b=SVnnTeSekuwBEusIuqAHUihHvb1MaLkjxOmKmCK9beXVTIynzad+qT6L9d+xgz8lM2
 8YPxrlm9CC52lS9DtSqjyslF99JLOAm2cGGPMWfiAinUWHAHFDZFidJ7UBDbHuYFXIwA
 iSGJfJGgNvyTDLXGkUeeY62nGzTRE2wf22pOJjzCtLIjkxb0dX9R8JcqOND+9jwHipyr
 FOnlksdLfst/7eqeWuB7vvjlPUeStRExtGz1sGH5IAmpvUyQFevxPMbgFv+Hxz6Qvxm0
 7XFo54w82dE2ew1STWT0KeX0l7JVdT9eWtZPIJx20rzB+/C+1IEjmw64XFyKAmbNz2Zw
 upLw=X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLB4M8VhtfPnFtsIQxdHgHMfplKybjObkm3dDoP/cHKffTLzzUeQsQkQi5U032vwK/HtfRkxb+H88suKg=MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.155.131 with SMTP id d125mr12433444vke.146.1457256651482;
 Sun, 06 Mar 2016 01:30:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.159.55.208 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Mar 2016 01:30:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <158043258-63a666d93d341167f777a9aa26e9ae99@pmq1v.m5r2.onet>
References: <158043258-63a666d93d341167f777a9aa26e9ae99@pmq1v.m5r2.onet>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 10:30:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKbMwWomniyf_0EW9UDUmqn2TK+s3O13jGz2pn74ErgwrPsJ+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Harold Demure <harold.demure87@gmail.com>
To: dawid_jurek <dawid_jurek@vp.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Cc: "users@dpdk.org" <users@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Minimal dpdk configuration for 2 hosts
X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: usage discussions <users.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/users/>
List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2016 09:30:52 -0000

Hello Dawid,
  I am no expert but a single port should be able to take care of both TX
and RX queues. For example, I am currently running two hosts with only one
port each and they are able to both send and receive messages.
Regards,
 Harold

2016-03-04 21:47 GMT+01:00 dawid_jurek <dawid_jurek@vp.pl>:

> Hello,
> I wonder what is the minimal configuration (in sense on number of NIC
> ports) to run basic dpdk examples like
> basicfwd, rxtx_callbacks or forwarding by testpmd for 2 hosts connected
> directly by Ethernet.
> Is it possible to perform one directional transmission for some kind of
> sender-reciever scenario (2 hosts, every host with one port)?
> It seems that for every kind of transmission between 2 machines I need at
> least 4 ports
> (because every port may take care of TX or RX but not both of them at the
> same time).
> Is it correct?
> Regards,
> Dawid
>

Re: [dpdk-users] Minimal dpdk configuration for 2 hosts

[Harold Demure]

Hello Dawid
  I do not have any snippet of code ready to share and I am not really
familiar with running the test applications (I prefer looking at the code).
However, you can look at the load balancer example and the packet burst
generator (in the test app) from the dpdk package to see how packets are
sent over a udp/ip/ethernet stack and received from the NIC to be
dispatched through software rings.
Hope this helps
  Harold

2016-03-10 15:59 GMT+01:00 dawid_jurek <dawid_jurek@vp.pl>:

> Hello Harold,
> I did investigation and one directional forwarding through 2 hosts
> connected by one port NIC each is possible indeed.
> Testpmd with following command line arguments can do that:
>
> On host1 (as sender):
> ./testpmd -c 0x3 -n4 -- -i --forward-mode=txonly --port-topology=chained
>
> On host2 (as reciever):
> ./testpmd -c 0x3 -n4 -- -i --forward-mode=rxonly --port-topology=chained
>
> Anyway still I don't how to run two directional communication. Harold,
> could you provide commands/command line options for this?
> Also It seems that  2 port NIC on every host is required to run basicfwd,
> rxtx_callbacks and other examples
> (dpdk gives me print that number of ports must be even).
>
> Regards,
> Dawid
>
> W dniu 2016-03-06 10:30:51 użytkownik Harold Demure <
> harold.demure87@gmail.com> napisał:
>
> Hello Dawid,
> I am no expert but a single port should be able to take care of both TX
> and RX queues. For example, I am currently running two hosts with only one
> port each and they are able to both send and receive messages.
> Regards,
> Harold
>
> 2016-03-04 21:47 GMT+01:00 dawid_jurek <dawid_jurek@vp.pl>:
>
> Hello,
> I wonder what is the minimal configuration (in sense on number of NIC
> ports) to run basic dpdk examples like
> basicfwd, rxtx_callbacks or forwarding by testpmd for 2 hosts connected
> directly by Ethernet.
> Is it possible to perform one directional transmission for some kind of
> sender-reciever scenario (2 hosts, every host with one port)?
> It seems that for every kind of transmission between 2 machines I need at
> least 4 ports
> (because every port may take care of TX or RX but not both of them at the
> same time).
> Is it correct?
> Regards,
> Dawid
>
>
>

Re: [dpdk-users] Minimal dpdk configuration for 2 hosts

[dawid_jurek]

Hello Harold,
I did investigation and one directional forwarding through 2 hosts connected by one port NIC each is possible indeed.
Testpmd with following command line arguments can do that:
 
On host1 (as sender):
./testpmd -c 0x3 -n4 -- -i --forward-mode=txonly --port-topology=chained
On host2 (as reciever):
./testpmd -c 0x3 -n4 -- -i --forward-mode=rxonly --port-topology=chained
 
Anyway still I don't how to run two directional communication. Harold, could you provide commands/command line options for this?
Also It seems that  2 port NIC on every host is required to run basicfwd, rxtx_callbacks and other examples
(dpdk gives me print that number of ports must be even).
 
Regards,
Dawid
 
W dniu 2016-03-06 10:30:51 użytkownik Harold Demure <harold.demure87@gmail.com> napisał:
Hello Dawid,
I am no expert but a single port should be able to take care of both TX and RX queues. For example, I am currently running two hosts with only one port each and they are able to both send and receive messages.
Regards,
Harold
2016-03-04 21:47 GMT+01:00 dawid_jurek <dawid_jurek@vp.pl>:
Hello,
I wonder what is the minimal configuration (in sense on number of NIC ports) to run basic dpdk examples like
basicfwd, rxtx_callbacks or forwarding by testpmd for 2 hosts connected directly by Ethernet.
Is it possible to perform one directional transmission for some kind of sender-reciever scenario (2 hosts, every host with one port)?
It seems that for every kind of transmission between 2 machines I need at least 4 ports
(because every port may take care of TX or RX but not both of them at the same time).
Is it correct?
Regards,
Dawid
 
From Simon.Jouet@glasgow.ac.uk  Thu Mar 10 17:36:35 2016
Return-Path: <Simon.Jouet@glasgow.ac.uk>
Received: from plockton.cent.gla.ac.uk (plockton.cent.gla.ac.uk
 [130.209.16.75]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4CA2E81
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:36:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from cas06.campus.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.14.39])
 by plockton.cent.gla.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
 (envelope-from <Simon.Jouet@glasgow.ac.uk>) id 1ae3Zj-00014f-Hb
 for users@dpdk.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:36:35 +0000
Received: from CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk ([169.254.1.211]) by
 CAS06.campus.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.14.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0279.002; Thu, 10
 Mar 2016 16:36:35 +0000
From: Simon Jouet <Simon.Jouet@glasgow.ac.uk>
To: "users@dpdk.org" <users@dpdk.org>
Thread-Topic: L2fwd very slow throughput
Thread-Index: AdF66wHM5iT08bzlTk+DNFHq2Vz5dw=Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:36:33 +0000
Message-ID: <8379404C2611CB4BB6D4166627C18EA916BAE8D9@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: [dpdk-users] L2fwd very slow throughput
X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: usage discussions <users.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/users/>
List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:36:35 -0000
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