Re: [mpls-linux-devel] Fedora x86_64 Kernel

[Chris R. <Chr...@nr...>]

James

The patches I sent for F-12 kernel 2.6.31.5-127 and F-12 iproute patched 
(which did not change since F-11) seem to work for several commandline 
functions (aka mpls nhlfe, mpls xc, mpls ilm and mpls show commands).  
However, traffic passing validation still needs to be done.  Kernel 
boots up with no error or warning messages.  None-MPLS traffic appears 
to be intact such as establishing and using an VPN overlay.  When I can 
get to it an LER configuration will be tested.

...Chris

On 11/17/2009 09:42 AM, James Leu wrote:
> Wow. That is really bad.  I will start digging deeper.
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 09:31:55AM -0500, Chris Robson wrote:
>    
>> Hello James
>>
>> Yes it has been a very long time but I've been determined to get time to
>> continue the MPLS-linux performance testing over 10GE.
>>
>> Finally I can report some results but they are not very good.  First, I
>> switched to netperf as it provides far better results and seems more
>> reliable than iperf.
>>
>> So here is the layout of the test configuration.
>>
>> 1.  Each host configuration: Dell 860 dual PCIe x8-lane/x4-lane with
>> Myricom Gen 2 PCIe 10GE NICs (cards are in x8-lane slot)
>> 2.  Kernel version is:  2.6.29.6-217.2.16.f11 with MPLS-Linux patches
>> 3.  IProute version is:  2.6.29-2.f11 with MPLS-Linux patches
>> 4.  netperf command issued:  netperf -L {local LER IP} -H {target LER IP}
>>       netserver -L {local LER IP}
>> 5.  Network layout, back-to-back hosts acting as LERs such that:
>> LER<---->LER
>> 6.  example MPLS configuration commands issued on both LERs
>>       mpls labelspace set dev eth{interface to nexthop LER} labelspace 0
>>       mpls nhlfe add key 0 instructions push gen {label} nexthop
>> eth{interface to nexthop LER} ipv4 {necthop IP}
>>       mpls ilm add label gen {label} labelspace 0
>>       ip route add {nexthop target subnet IP/mask} via {nexthop IP} mpls
>> {key}
>>
>> Test summary results:
>>
>> 1.  Baseline rates for directly attached interfaces:  9.3G
>> 2.  Baseline rates for VLAN Tagged interface using "interface routes":  9.3G
>> 3.  Baseline rates for non-MPLS routed subnets:  5.0G(plus-or-minus 1G)
>> 3.  Routed IP thru MPLS LSP:  0.45G<------------- less than 1G, this is
>> not good
>>
>> Let me know if there is anything particular you'd like looking into on this.
>>
>> ...Chris
>>
>>
>>      
>    
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-linux-devel mailing list
> mpl...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-devel
>