nanog mailing list archives

Re: TCP Performance


From: Bryan Tong <contact () nullivex com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 03:24:09 -0600

I mean programatically speaking your network equipment generally knows no
difference between and HTTP packet and an IPerf packet. (Layer 3 packet
forwarding only breaks the first 84 bits off the header, Layer 2 gets 52
bits (with a vlan tag))  So, unless QoS of some kind gets brought into the
picture the protocol shouldnt make a difference, however, if something is
examining the packets further than that it could also be causing your
throughput issues. Also, keep in mind some switches ship with QoS enabled
for VoIP etc.

Might be something to check into further.


On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Bryan Tong <contact () nullivex com> wrote:

Try your iperf over port 80 and see if your hitting any website related
filters. At least rule it out.

Or try HTTP on a different port.

If your iperf test is getting link speed then you can rule most things
connection related. I really think some device is QoS'ing packets bound
to<>from port 80.


On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Nick Olsen <nick () flhsi com> wrote:

I have indeed tried that. And it didn't make any difference. Functionally
limiting each router port to is connected microwave links capacity. And
queuing the overflow. However the queue never really fills as the traffic
rate never goes higher then the allocated bandwidth.

Nick Olsen
Network Operations (855) FLSPEED  x106

----------------------------------------
From: "Blake Dunlap" <ikiris () gmail com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:32 PM
To: nick () flhsi com
Cc: "Tim Warnock" <timoid () timoid org>, "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org

Subject: Re: TCP Performance

If you have a router, you can turn on shaping to the bandwidth the link
will support.

-Blake

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Nick Olsen <nick () flhsi com> wrote:
 I do indeed have stats for "TX Pause Frames" And they do increment.
However, Our router is ignoring them since it doesn't support flow
control.

I guess my next question would be. In the scenario where we insert a
switch
between the radio and the router that does support flow control. Are we
not
only moving where the overflow is going to occur? Will we not see the
router still burst traffic at line rate toward the switch, Which then
buffer overflows sending to the radio on account of it receiving pause
frames?

Nick Olsen
Network Operations (855) FLSPEED  x106

----------------------------------------
From: "Tim Warnock" <timoid () timoid org>
 Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:08 PM
To: "Blake Dunlap" <ikiris () gmail com>, "nick () flhsi com" <nick () flhsi com>
 Cc: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: RE: TCP Performance

Regardless, your problem looks like either tail drops or packet loss,
which
you showed originally. The task is to find out where this is occurring,
and
which of the two it is. If you want to confirm what is going on, there
are
 > some great bandwidth calculators on the internet which will show you
what
bandwidth you can get with a given ms delay and % packet loss.

As far as flow control, its really outside the scope. If you ever need
flow
 > control, there is usually a specific reason like FCoE, and if not, it's
generally better to just fix the backplane congestion issue if you can,
than ever worry about using FC. The problem with FC isn't node to node,
its
 > when you have node to node to node with additional devices, it isn't
smart
enough to discriminate, and can crater your network 3 devices over when
it
would be much better to just lose a few packets.
 >
-Blake

In my experience - if you're traversing licenced microwave links as
indicated flow control will definitely need to be ON.

Check the radio modem stats to confirm but - if you're seeing lots of
drops
there you're overflowing the buffers on the radio modem.





--
--------------------
Bryan Tong
Nullivex LLC | eSited LLC
(507) 298-1624




-- 
--------------------
Bryan Tong
Nullivex LLC | eSited LLC
(507) 298-1624


Current thread: