From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from serv108.segi.ulg.ac.be (serv108.segi.ulg.ac.be [139.165.32.111]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39ABB1B2DD for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:27:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be (serv470.segi.ulg.ac.be [139.165.32.199]) by serv108.segi.ulg.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE196200DFA8; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:27:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id E55C4129EA06; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:27:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id wmsCXMoln9vQ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:27:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be (mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be [139.165.32.199]) by mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id D114A129EA03; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:27:34 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:27:34 +0100 (CET) From: tom.barbette@uliege.be To: =?utf-8?Q?J=C3=A1nos?= Pauer Cc: users@dpdk.org Message-ID: <1672676991.50738940.1516120054797.JavaMail.zimbra@uliege.be> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [10.38.4.163] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.7.1_GA_1670 (ZimbraWebClient - GC63 (Linux)/8.7.1_GA_1670) Thread-Topic: performance difference between ixgbe and i40e Thread-Index: AdOO2cCpfw5vcP4EQJCM0HkHNB0+AjoUtFuB Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] performance difference between ixgbe and i40e X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:27:35 -0000 Hi J=C3=A1nos, We actually saw the reverse behavior on our end. Does dmesg complains about= your card not being on a PCI Express 3 x8 port? To achieve full 40G it is = a requirement (assuming you have a 4X10G setup). Tom ----- Mail original ----- > De: "J=C3=A1nos Pauer" > =C3=80: users@dpdk.org > Envoy=C3=A9: Mardi 16 Janvier 2018 16:01:31 > Objet: [dpdk-users] performance difference between ixgbe and i40e > Hi all, >=20 > I am using OVS with dpdk v16.11. I have two setups for performance measur= ement, > which are almost identical, the only difference is that one setup has i40= e > driven 10G NICs and the other one has ixgbe driven 10G NICs. > I have MoonGen for packet generating, and testPMD to reflect the traffic.= The > measurement results are much higher with the ixgbe-driven card. It's abou= t +20% > with smaller packet sizes, and more than +40% with bigger packet sizes. > Does anyone have any idea what can cause this? Is there any significant > difference between the mentioned drivers? >=20 > Thanks and Regards, > J=C3=A1nos