Archives


- Beowulf
- Beowulf Announce
- Scyld-users
- Beowulf on Debian

[Beowulf] Re: typical latencies for gigabit ethernet

Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.

Search

Dave Love d.love at liverpool.ac.uk
Tue Jun 30 06:17:35 PDT 2009


Patrick Geoffray <patrick at myri.com> writes:

> So, if you set rx-frames to 1, there will be an interrupt after each 
> packet.

Isn't that turning off coalescence, as you recommended?

> Not many devices implement rx-frames, since it does not 
> distinguish between small and large frames. Adaptive coalescing methods 
> do look at the size of the frames to figure out if the traffic is mostly 
> latency or bandwidth sensitive, but it's just a guess.

Yes.  With e1000, I saw 28.2μs omx_perf latency using
InterruptThrottleRate=1, v. 19.5 using InterruptThrottleRate=0.  With
forcedeth, optimization_mode=1, it was 20.2, v. 10.4 with
optimization_mode=0 (the default).  These weren't with the same setup
as the figures on the web page I referred to, by the way.

> On GigE, each 1500 Bytes frames takes more than 10us on the wire so even 
> with interrupt coalescing turned off, you won't get more than 100K 
> interrupts per second.

Good point.

> In the worst case, you would lose a core if you don't let the OS move
> the interrupt handler to do load balancing. What is one core these
> days ? :-)

I guess that depends on what everything else is doing.  It's normally
recommended to use the default (non-)affinity of interrupts, isn't it?

I'll try to collect anything useful from this for the Open-MX FAQ.  This
stuff seems generally badly documented (such as ethtool not even telling
you what the coalescence parameters actually are).  Thanks (and thanks
to Myricom for funding Open-MX, by the way).




More information about the Beowulf mailing list