From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5535A0471 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 19:56:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09CEE1D556; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 19:56:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from yudhisthira.itb.ac.id (yudhisthira.itb.ac.id [167.205.1.122]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563911D54A for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 19:56:47 +0200 (CEST) X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1561139803-0ef5d71887d93310001-iCDrvK Received: from students.itb.ac.id (students.itb.ac.id [167.205.59.2]) by yudhisthira.itb.ac.id with ESMTP id G2FfmuCM2dPPVhJr (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 22 Jun 2019 00:56:43 +0700 (WIB) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: abrahamgv@students.itb.ac.id X-Barracuda-Effective-Source-IP: students.itb.ac.id[167.205.59.2] X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 167.205.59.2 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by students.itb.ac.id (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0F86721555; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 00:56:39 +0700 (WIB) Received: from students.itb.ac.id ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (students.itb.ac.id [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id IvByLent5Vwf; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 00:56:38 +0700 (WIB) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by students.itb.ac.id (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFF5672163F; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 00:56:38 +0700 (WIB) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at studentsvm0.itb.ac.id Received: from students.itb.ac.id ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (students.itb.ac.id [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id wN8XNfUfe9oK; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 00:56:38 +0700 (WIB) Received: from students.itb.ac.id (students.itb.ac.id [167.205.59.2]) by students.itb.ac.id (Postfix) with ESMTP id B33596721555; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 00:56:38 +0700 (WIB) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 00:56:38 +0700 (WIB) From: abrahamgv@students.itb.ac.id To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: users Message-ID: <512724586.278993.1561139798651.JavaMail.zimbra@students.itb.ac.id> In-Reply-To: <20190621080853.63b0ac72@hermes.lan> References: <1907574011.276718.1561123881335.JavaMail.zimbra@students.itb.ac.id> <20190621080853.63b0ac72@hermes.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [dpdk-users] DPDK on 1Gbps NIC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [167.205.59.2] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.6.0_GA_1242 (ZimbraWebClient - FF67 (Linux)/8.6.0_GA_1242) Thread-Topic: DPDK on 1Gbps NIC Thread-Index: 1d8+WNck0a6DhYhHXKKCGBDnqXmMpQ== X-Barracuda-Connect: students.itb.ac.id[167.205.59.2] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1561139803 X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 X-Barracuda-URL: https://167.205.1.122:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at itb.ac.id X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 1793 X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.5000 1.0000 0.0100 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.01 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.01 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.72983 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.00 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real name Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] DPDK on 1Gbps NIC 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: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "users" Oh, I see. Thank you for your response, Stephen. Regards, Abraham ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Hemminger" To: abrahamgv@students.itb.ac.id Cc: "users" Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 10:08:53 PM Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] DPDK on 1Gbps NIC On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 20:31:21 +0700 (WIB) abrahamgv@students.itb.ac.id wrote: > So I recently try to implement physical OvS-DPDK with Intel NIC (1Gbps). Then, I compared the performance between native OvS and OvS-DPDK. I found out that there is not much difference in the performance, I also tried changing the packet size (range from 64B - 1500B) and the result: OvS-DPDK is 1.05~1.3x higher than native OvS. Meanwhile, Intel performance report (this is one of them: https://download.01.org/packet-processing/ONPS2.1/Intel_ONP_Release_2.1_Performance_Test_Report_Rev1.0.pdf ) stated that OvS-DPDK performance is 10~12x higher than native OvS (in the link given, it is on section 7.2.1: PHY-OVS-PHY). > > The difference between "my OvS" and "Intel OvS" is Intel used 10Gbps NIC (and even try to reach 40Gbps by using 4x10Gbps NIC), instead of me that just used 1Gbps NIC. So here is my question: > > 1) Is DPDK performance-gain more likely to happen with higher speed NIC, such as 10Gbps NIC rather than 1Gbps or 100 Mbps NIC? > 2) And to prove the question above, is there any performance report regarding OvS-DPDK vs native-OvS with 1Gbps or 100 Mbps NIC? > > Thank you, > > Abraham A 1Gbit NIC is slow enough that CPU can keep up, so polling like DPDK doesn't really help. The standard Linux kernel GRO also helps and can keep up at those speeds. Summary: There really is no performance benefit expected with DPDK with fast cpu's at 1Gbit or less.