From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F30A0613 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 06:40:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DBF42956; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 06:40:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wm1-f43.google.com (mail-wm1-f43.google.com [209.85.128.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05EAE2862 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 06:40:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm1-f43.google.com with SMTP id m18so961226wmc.1 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 21:40:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=1GHvriWicHG54kE+kwstuOnO415R6Ih7zcSQqJo9J4o=; b=u961PPls7R/arQwBrESb4DXknYmTF4zP9rsaUYonigLqZPd2gWTNTOhQ0chTNYCKmQ JvPVddYF7SL9vYGLBwuBkIAfBGmXXtRdsHZOll1Yq4Fi9vSW0XC8eoSbOxJe2D+hwIqE 1lQSV4O3UYGWtUB1l0Mz0Oj7UB9R38HxFi52CFLufqxInGXG6ROkCztqpDPeyWSsLZq1 OLQy5Ix0R6JHRusd+xwhIHPSgXgJuVjGJpNGm7ip1zsIrXqSXaDeJl7X1uOX8Q93RSRy XamlsIS/iUCsm06iLA3kM+wVcUySr9m5cTHs3Vkt2pV2Empq1ccBjYagD/QQyq7Cj1ly 4o1A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=1GHvriWicHG54kE+kwstuOnO415R6Ih7zcSQqJo9J4o=; b=n/UMNV19l7pONXUO/YQousfK1PfJig/oXmOcGUpH17JXizLTeAMuRBs5GUmOggaB0a k3vlM2GvhZH+f8XGjfhDDF1K+0MScmKMADc0r7bTv9J5D9NltI/Te6qjwRFCNQ9lf0LQ RSI8oDCVJ5nJgXkacsKsOKcWnTzngKZ+cNTQz53s8FLyW5J2ib9ptV2ChzMW6r5QLlfh +3DU8M53rt73oU4zUkInet09Z6LcJOn+MegABA+zAPF66F0kPoyCC8KTw6C3wzMw8AWi +ZsxTBskTsNOKNPB2wlKW7qhb6lZiP+Fahz5ySsHjhSv4bMU0ykDJHIQ1bDyrK4Pbqdj QaeQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVs0xAEIC6Py332gxBHjcmq7oKyw0s3UgeHTPuJtc8/ucppafV7 FbFX8hBooG0l6dsPc4vELIwdxfWS2SPSs9KLXS3n2VLwJRM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx+1EHjHO2ENqRY7wOp8VkYTRsq4Bi6uiJUtvzs8qRNMLiy+Rm+pEK+/dGYrXVt17AsNAw/Bfi1/kx7bh5QYZA= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:2bc7:: with SMTP id r190mr1220888wmr.143.1569472837270; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 21:40:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Dheeraj Dang Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 10:10:25 +0530 Message-ID: To: users@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: [dpdk-users] Strange Packet Loss with number of flows. 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" Hi, I am having a problem with packet loss and I hope you can help me out. When we increase the number of flows, PPM value must increase. I observed this behavior to some point, but after that PPM value reduces. Below you find the description of application, workload, and observations. *Application* I have a server-client application, a single server, and single client. Both machines are using multiple queues to send or receive packets. *Workload* I'm running dpdk with fixed PPS value i.e 2 Mpps. I'm increasing the number of flows to see the impact on PPM value. I'm changing UDP port range to generate the number of flows. *Observations* Target MPPS Flows PPM 2 2 100 2 100 670 2 1000 3136 2 5000 265878 2 10000 106316 *I was expecting PPM value to rise for 10K flows, but its value reduces.* Please share your suggestions. Regards Dheeraj Dang