public inbox for netdev@vger.kernel.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay•com>
To: Kenny Chang <kchang@athenacr•com>
Cc: netdev@vger•kernel.org
Subject: Re: Multicast packet loss
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:04:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <49834F2F.9070500@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49833DBC.7040607@athenacr.com>

Kenny Chang a écrit :
> Hi all,
> 
> We've been having some issues with multicast packet loss, we were wondering
> if anyone knows anything about the behavior we're seeing.
> 
> Background: we use multicast messaging with lots of messages per sec for
> our
> work. We recently transitioned many of our systems from an Ubuntu Dapper
> Drake
> ia32 distribution to Ubuntu Hardy Heron x86_64. Since the transition, we've
> noticed much more multicast packet loss, and we think it's related to the
> transition. Our particular theory is that it's specifically a 32 vs 64-bit
> issue.
> 
> We narrowed the problem down to the attached program (mcasttest.cc).  Run
> "mcasttest server" on one machine -- it'll send 500,000 messages small
> message
> to a multicast group, 50,000 messages per second.  If we run "mcasttest
> client"
> on another machine, it'll receive all those messages and print a count
> at the
> end of how many messages it sees. It almost never loses any messages.
> However,
> if we run 4 copies of the client on the same machine, receiving the same
> data,
> then the programs usually sees fewer than 500,000 messages. We're
> running with:
> 
> for i in $(seq 1 4); do (./mcasttest client &); done
> 
> We know this because the program prints a count, but dropped packets also
> show up in ifconfig's "RX packets" section.
> 
> Things we're curious about: do other people see similar problems?  The
> tests
> we've done: we've tried this program on a bunch of different machines,
> all of
> which are running either dapper ia32 or hardy x86_64. Uniformly, the dapper
> machines have no problems but on certain machines, Hardy shows
> significant loss. We did some experiments on a troubled machine, varying
> the OS install, including mixed installations where the kernel was
> 64-bit and the userspace was
> 32-bit. This is what we found:
> 
> On machines that exhibit this problem, the ksoftirqd process seems to be
> pegged to 100% CPU when receiving packets.
> 
> Note: while we're on Ubuntu, we've tried this with other distros and
> have seen
> similar results, we just haven't tabulated them.
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> userland | userland arch | kernel           | kernel arch |
>> mode          
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Dapper   |            32 | 2.6.15-28-server |          32 | no packet
>> loss
>> Dapper   |            32 | 2.6.22-generic   |          32 | no packet
>> loss Dapper   |            32 | 2.6.22-server    |          32 | no
>> packet loss Hardy    |            32 | 2.6.24-rt        |          32
>> | no packet loss
>> Hardy    |            32 | 2.6.24-generic   |          32 | ~5% packet
>> loss
>> Hardy    |            32 | 2.6.24-server    |          32 | ~10%
>> packet loss
> 
>> Hardy    |            32 | 2.6.22-server    |          64 | no packet
>> loss
>> Hardy    |            32 | 2.6.24-rt        |          64 | no packet
>> loss
>> Hardy    |            32 | 2.6.24-generic   |          64 | 14% packet
>> loss
>> Hardy    |            32 | 2.6.24-server    |          64 | 12% packet
>> loss
> 
>> Hardy    |            64 | 2.6.22-vanilla   |          64 | packet loss
>> Hardy    |            64 | 2.6.24-rt        |          64 | ~5% packet
>> loss
>> Hardy    |            64 | 2.6.24-server    |          64 | ~30%
>> packet loss
>> Hardy    |            64 | 2.6.24-generic   |          64 | ~5% packet
>> loss
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> 
> It's not exactly clear what exactly the problem is but dapper shows no
> issues regardless of what we try. For hardy, userspace seem to matter:
> 2.6.24-rt kernel shows no packet loss for 32&64bit kernels, as long as
> the userspace is 32-bit.
> 
> Kernel comments:
> 2.6.15-28-server: This is Ubuntu Dapper's stock kernel build.
> 2.6.24-*: This is Ubuntu Hardy's stock kernel.
> 2.6.22-{generic,server}: This is a custom, in-house kernel build, built
> for ia32.
> 2.6.22-vanilla: This is our custom, in-house kernel build, built for
> x86_64.
> 
> We don't think it's related to our custom kernels, because the same
> phenomena
> show up with the Ubuntu stock kernels.
> 
> Hardware:
> 
> The benchmark machine We've been using is an Intel Xeon E5440 @2.83GHz
> dual-cpu quad-core with Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM5708 bnx2 networking.
> 
> We've also tried AMD machines, as well as machines with Tigon3
> partno(BCM95704A6) tg3 network cards, they all show consistent behavior.
> 
> Our hardy x86_64 server machines all appear to have this problem, new
> and old.
> 
> On the other hand, a desktop with Intel Q6600 quad core 2.4GHz and Intel
> 82566DC GigE
> seem to work fine.
> 
> All of the dapper ia32 machines have no trouble, even our older hardware.
> 
>

Hi Kenny

Interesting... You forgot the mcasttest.cc program

Any chance you try a recent kernel (2.6.29-rcX) ?

Could you post "cat /proc/interrupts" results (one for working
 setup, another for non working/droping setup)



  reply	other threads:[~2009-01-30 19:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-01-30 17:49 Multicast packet loss Kenny Chang
2009-01-30 19:04 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2009-01-30 19:17 ` Denys Fedoryschenko
2009-01-30 20:03 ` Neil Horman
2009-01-30 22:29   ` Kenny Chang
2009-01-30 22:41     ` Eric Dumazet
2009-01-31 16:03       ` Neil Horman
2009-02-02 16:13         ` Kenny Chang
2009-02-02 16:48         ` Kenny Chang
2009-02-03 11:55           ` Neil Horman
2009-02-03 15:20             ` Kenny Chang
2009-02-04  1:15               ` Neil Horman
2009-02-04 16:07                 ` Kenny Chang
2009-02-04 16:46                   ` Wesley Chow
2009-02-04 18:11                     ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-05 13:33                       ` Neil Horman
2009-02-05 13:46                         ` Wesley Chow
2009-02-05 13:29                   ` Neil Horman
2009-02-01 12:40       ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-02 13:45         ` Neil Horman
2009-02-02 16:57           ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-02 18:22             ` Neil Horman
2009-02-02 19:51               ` Wes Chow
2009-02-02 20:29                 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-02 21:09                   ` Wes Chow
2009-02-02 21:31                     ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-03 17:34                       ` Kenny Chang
2009-02-04  1:21                         ` Neil Horman
2009-02-26 17:15                           ` Kenny Chang
2009-02-28  8:51                             ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-01 17:03                               ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-04  8:16                               ` David Miller
2009-03-04  8:36                                 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-07  7:46                                   ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-08 16:46                                     ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-09  2:49                                       ` David Miller
2009-03-09  6:36                                         ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-13 21:51                                           ` David Miller
2009-03-13 22:30                                             ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-13 22:38                                               ` David Miller
2009-03-13 22:45                                                 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-14  9:03                                                   ` [PATCH] net: reorder fields of struct socket Eric Dumazet
2009-03-16  2:59                                                     ` David Miller
2009-03-16 22:22                                                 ` Multicast packet loss Eric Dumazet
2009-03-17 10:11                                                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-17 11:08                                                     ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-17 11:57                                                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-17 15:00                                                       ` Brian Bloniarz
2009-03-17 15:16                                                         ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-17 19:39                                                           ` David Stevens
2009-03-17 21:19                                                             ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-03 19:28                                                   ` Brian Bloniarz
2009-04-05 13:49                                                     ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-06 21:53                                                       ` Brian Bloniarz
2009-04-06 22:12                                                         ` Brian Bloniarz
2009-04-07 20:08                                                       ` Brian Bloniarz
2009-04-08  8:12                                                         ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-09 22:56                                       ` Brian Bloniarz
2009-03-10  5:28                                         ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-10 23:22                                           ` Brian Bloniarz
2009-03-11  3:00                                             ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-12 15:47                                               ` Brian Bloniarz
2009-03-12 16:34                                                 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-27 18:40       ` Christoph Lameter
2009-02-27 18:56         ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-27 19:45           ` Christoph Lameter
2009-02-27 20:12             ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-27 21:36               ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-02 13:53     ` Eric Dumazet
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-04-05 14:42 bmb

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=49834F2F.9070500@cosmosbay.com \
    --to=dada1@cosmosbay$(echo .)com \
    --cc=kchang@athenacr$(echo .)com \
    --cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox