[Beowulf] Whats up with these newer Intel NICs?
deadline at eadline.org
Sun Sep 23 20:43:59 PDT 2007
Just a guess, but did you play with any of the driver
parameters like ITR and Flow Control. Out of the box
many of these are set to safe values.
Plus, there seems to be no data on Intel's website for the
80003ES2LAN. Maybe it is so new the driver development
is lagging (another guess)
> Hi folks:
> Working on trying to figure out why the Intel NICs on these
> motherboards we are working with are slow. Ok, slow is a relative term.
> More along the lines of "not as fast as they could be" specifically
> relative to a PCI-x 1000/MT adapter we plugged in.
> Scenario is trying to do some load testing. I have 4 clients, all
> with the same version of OS, pounding on our server (part of the load
> test). Gigabit, server does channel bonding. Seeing good results. But
> .... on the nodes that use this beast:
> 04:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 80003ES2LAN Gigabit
> Ethernet Controller (Copper) (rev 01)
> Subsystem: Super Micro Computer Inc Unknown device 0000
> Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 1274
> Memory at c8200000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=128K]
> I/O ports at 2000 [size=32]
> Capabilities: [c8] Power Management version 2
> Capabilities: [d0] Message Signalled Interrupts: Mask- 64bit+
> Queue=0/0 Enable+
> Capabilities: [e0] Express Endpoint IRQ 0
> Capabilities:  Advanced Error Reporting
> Capabilities:  Device Serial Number f2-72-32-ff-ff-48-30-00
> we get ~70-75 MB/s, while plugging a nice little
> 05:02.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82546GB Gigabit Ethernet
> Controller (rev 01)
> Subsystem: Intel Corporation PRO/1000 MT Dual Port Server Adapter
> Flags: bus master, 66MHz, medium devsel, latency 52, IRQ 28
> Memory at c8340000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=128K]
> Memory at c8300000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256K]
> I/O ports at 3000 [size=64]
> [virtual] Expansion ROM at c2000000 [disabled] [size=256K]
> Capabilities: [dc] Power Management version 2
> Capabilities: [e4] PCI-X non-bridge device
> into a PCI-x slot gives us 92-98 MB/s for our load test (IOzone). It
> gives more than that, I am optically averaging.
> Ok. So the mystery is *why*.
> First I note that the first unit, which is a motherboard NIC, has
> "32-bit memory" at a particular address, while the second unit, the
> 1000/MT card in the PCI-x slot has "64-bit memory" at a different address.
> Second, and this is counter intuitive, but the motherboard gigabit unit
> is on PCI-e (x4 at that!)
>> [ 115.246121] PCI: Setting latency timer of device 0000:04:00.0 to 64
>> [ 115.261547] e1000: 0000:04:00.0: e1000_probe: (PCI
>> Express:2.5Gb/s:Width x4) 00:30:48:32:72:f2
>> [ 115.290791] PM: Adding info for No Bus:eth0
>> [ 115.290843] e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network
>> [ 115.290868] ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:04:00.1[B] -> GSI 19 (level,
>> low) -> IRQ 19
>> [ 115.290882] PCI: Setting latency timer of device 0000:04:00.1 to 64
>> [ 115.306461] e1000: 0000:04:00.1: e1000_probe: (PCI
>> Express:2.5Gb/s:Width x4) 00:30:48:32:72:f3
>> [ 115.342947] PM: Adding info for No Bus:eth1
>> [ 115.342983] e1000: eth1: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network
> while the PCI-x is on, well, PCI-x. And it should be slower.
>> [ 115.608773] e1000: 0000:05:02.0: e1000_probe: (PCI:33MHz:64-bit)
>> [ 115.636072] PM: Adding info for No Bus:eth2
>> [ 115.636105] e1000: eth2: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network
>> [ 115.636129] ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:05:02.1[B] -> GSI 29 (level,
>> low) -> IRQ 29
>> [ 115.902030] e1000: 0000:05:02.1: e1000_probe: (PCI:33MHz:64-bit)
>> [ 115.928619] PM: Adding info for No Bus:eth3
>> [ 115.928648] e1000: eth3: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network
>> [ 115.928687] ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:06:00.0[A] -> GSI 24 (level,
>> low) -> IRQ 24
> The driver is 7.3.20-k2-NAPI
>> [ 110.772712] Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - version 7.3.20-k2-NAPI
>> [ 110.772717] Copyright (c) 1999-2006 Intel Corporation.
> I know 7.6.5 is out, and I installed it on one of the machines, without
> any impact.
> Motherboard is a Supermicro X7DVA-i I think. I am also seeing this on a
> different Supermicro motherboard with dual cores. Same issue/performance.
> Any thoughts?
> Joseph Landman, Ph.D
> Founder and CEO
> Scalable Informatics LLC,
> email: landman at scalableinformatics.com
> web : http://www.scalableinformatics.com
> phone: +1 734 786 8423
> fax : +1 866 888 3112
> cell : +1 734 612 4615
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
More information about the Beowulf