[Oisf-users] af_packet and rss queue count

[erik clark]

Peter, did you have any opportunity to look at this? Just curious to hear
what, if anything, you may have found.

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Peter Manev <petermanev at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 1:27 PM, erik clark <philosnef at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, I missed the bottom there. I am using
> > https://github.com/JustinAzoff/can-i-use-afpacket-fanout to confirm that
> > flows are properly being assigned.
> >
> > Be aware, this does NOT work with ESP traffic. I had seen reverse udp/tcp
> > failures and couldn't figure out why, so I pulled pcap for the events
> (these
> > are marked with source/dest information from the afpacket go script), and
> > saw that 99.7ish% of the events posted with reverse failures were ESP
> > traffic. Since I can't do anything with ESP content anyway, I could not
> care
> > less that these are failing, as there is no way to do inspection on it.
> >
> > To get udp6/tcp6, you just set them with -N as in the example, specifying
> > tcp6 instead of tcp4 and so on.
> >
>
> Ok. Thank you.
> I will take a look and do some runs and will feedback the findings.
>
> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:20 AM, erik clark <philosnef at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, thats the patch at marc.info in the previous email. Please note
> the
> >> submitter of that patch. :)
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Peter Manev <petermanev at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 28 Dec 2016, at 15:00, erik clark <philosnef at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> (patch for ixgbe)
> >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=148181173415107&w=2
> >>>
> >>> (patch to ixgbe/src/kompat.h since it wont compile on rhel7.3 due to
> >>> kernel version issues. None of this is pf_ring specific)
> >>>
> >>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ntop/PF_RING/
> 41b6eb733e295c91375b135d2816dbdd09b4b548/drivers/intel/
> ixgbe/ixgbe-4.1.5-zc/src/kcompat.h
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In a different mail you mentioned that there is also a patch from Red
> Hat
> >>> with regards to at-packet not working on this kernel version - is this
> >>> fixed/working now?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> (ethtool arguments and irq setting)
> >>>
> >>> ethtool -C em1 rx-usecs 1 adaptive-rx off
> >>> ethtool -G em1 rx 4096 tx 4096
> >>> for x in tso gro lro gso rx tx sg; do ethtool -K em1 $x off; done
> >>> /opt/src/ixgbe-4.4.6/scripts/set_irq_affinity em1
> >>> ethtool -X em1 hkey
> >>> 6d:5a:6d:5a:6d:5a:6d:5a:6d:5a:6d:5a:6d:5a:6d:5a:6d:5a:6d:5a:
> 6d:5a:6d:5a:6d:5a:6d:5a:6d:5a:6d:5a:6d:5a:6d:5a:6d:5a:6d:5a
> >>> ethtool -N em1 rx-flow-hash tcp4 sdfn
> >>> ethtool -N em1 rx-flow-hash udp4 sdfn
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Can you confirm all flows are good for tcp/udp/4/6?
> >>> (And how do you confirm it?)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I have 64 cores, and set_irq_affinity pulls a full set of 63 rss
> queues.
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 1:28 PM, erik clark <philosnef at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I will post that on Wednesday when I get back to work. Its 6? ethtool
> >>>> statements, and 2 ixgbe patches (for rhel7 at least). Anything else
> should
> >>>> be just 1 patch. This is running the 4.4.6 ixgbe released from intel
> >>>> directly. This has worked for the most recent 3 kernels under RHEL7.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Peter Manev <petermanev at gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > On 24 Dec 2016, at 18:22, erik clark <philosnef at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > I have seen several places commenting that you should set the RSS
> >>>>> > queue to 1. However, when examining af_packet with Bro, a patch
> released
> >>>>> > from Redhat for the ixgbe kernel module, and some ethtool
> tweaking, we have
> >>>>> > found that (for Bro at least) running a full 63 (we have 54 cores)
> RSS
> >>>>> > queues vastly improves performance, and keeps state intact across
> sessions.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Based on this update, which fixes the broken implementation of
> >>>>> > setting a symmetric hash in the hardware of the card
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can you please share a bit in a bit more detail-
> >>>>> Which ixgbe/kernel version that is ?
> >>>>> Which patch is it ?
> >>>>> What is the ethtool tweaking procedure?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > (again ixgbe, not tested with i40e), is it still necessary to run
> one
> >>>>> > queue? If so, you can't run Bro and Suri on the same box with
> af_packet and
> >>>>> > get equivalent performance out of both tools. Having run Suri with
> 63 queues
> >>>>> > for a week now, it seems performance is considerably better than
> with
> >>>>> > pf_ring, and I can not find any unusual behavior in my alerts...
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>>> > Suricata IDS Users mailing list: oisf-users@
> openinfosecfoundation.org
> >>>>> > Site: http://suricata-ids.org | Support:
> >>>>> > http://suricata-ids.org/support/
> >>>>> > List:
> >>>>> > https://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/
> mailman/listinfo/oisf-users
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Peter Manev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/pipermail/oisf-users/attachments/20170106/d3a61168/attachment-0002.html>