Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #211792 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Rainer Dorsch <ml@bokomoko.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-07-27 15:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2019-07-28 11:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Network Bandwidth issue in VLAN-Router Rainer Dorsch <ml@bokomoko.de> - 2019-07-27 15:30 +0200
Re: Network Bandwidth issue in VLAN-Router Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2019-07-28 05:50 +0200
Re: Network Bandwidth issue in VLAN-Router Rainer Dorsch <ml@bokomoko.de> - 2019-07-28 11:30 +0200
| From | Rainer Dorsch <ml@bokomoko.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-27 15:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Network Bandwidth issue in VLAN-Router |
| Message-ID | <youVQ-3NS-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi,
I have a stretch box configured as VLAN router (Cubox -i2ex). There is a
drastic difference between the bandwidth of the uplink (VLAN1) and the
downlinks (VLAN 2 to 7):
On 192.168.7.1 (VLAN 7: eth0.7) I see arround 9 MB/s in a simple test:
rd@home:~$ wget -O /dev/null http://fs/debian-9.3.0-amd64-netinst.iso
[...] (9.08 MB/s)
rd@home:~$
On 192.168.0.30 (VLAN 1: eth0.1) is see less than 10%:
rd@home:~$ wget -O /dev/null https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz
--2019-07-27 14:46:38-- https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz
[...] (339KB/s)
To prove that it has nothing to do with the uplink (there is a Fritzbox 6430)
itself, I connected another machine on same VLAN 1 (192.168.0.203). So
overall, the network looks like this
Internet
|
|
Fritz-Box
|
| 192.168.0.203
|--------------------------------------- x86
|
| 192.168.0.30
|
Cubox i
|
| 192.168.7.*
|
Note, the Cubox-i has only 1 physical interface, drawn are the virtual
interface.
The x86 machine reaches also a much higher network bandwidth:
rd@h370:~/tmp.nobackup$ wget -O /dev/null https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/
linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz
[...] (5,49 MB/s)
rd@h370:~/tmp.nobackup$
I did run ifstat to confirm that there is no other traffic which consumes all the
bandwidth:
rd@home:/etc/shorewall$ ifstat -i eth0.1 1
eth0.1
KB/s in KB/s out
495.00 16.34
417.14 16.03
484.33 16.53
384.80 11.96
393.33 12.67
632.59 17.68
607.90 17.91
354.39 12.00
678.58 20.97
1119.24 26.88
1185.20 27.27
925.91 21.84
1245.82 27.88
940.69 26.06
1023.72 26.89
1114.13 26.33
997.74 24.56
876.72 19.49
1167.56 27.73
906.41 24.30
1127.62 27.36
919.79 20.01
915.31 20.95
990.86 23.97
1119.22 26.94
905.54 26.40
1143.21 28.44
1096.15 26.98
924.62 24.89
1076.53 24.87
1004.04 23.99
811.11 23.13
983.71 24.46
885.05 23.19
1052.26 43.33
1230.55 37.11
1517.61 33.67
818.60 24.37
1057.24 26.63
1131.38 26.47
1278.43 30.12
1123.24 24.31
788.14 21.74
757.56 23.86
1135.29 27.91
1161.76 25.15
1465.32 32.04
1175.41 26.16
1371.36 31.56
811.73 21.70
540.97 16.91
381.78 20.95
306.44 13.07
378.02 12.93
603.65 16.67
418.31 16.35
393.71 16.46
479.89 15.05
436.74 13.85
395.96 12.05
476.41 14.51
470.09 18.23
322.02 12.20
427.35 14.33
464.25 14.39
404.19 11.09
999.41 24.39
931.23 24.89
Also top does not show any obvious overload:
rd@home:~$ top
top - 14:51:53 up 34 days, 1:18, 3 users, load average: 1.10, 1.11, 1.24
Tasks: 177 total, 2 running, 125 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
%Cpu(s): 5.2 us, 5.2 sy, 0.0 ni, 87.9 id, 0.2 wa, 0.0 hi, 1.5 si, 0.0
st
KiB Mem : 2062764 total, 89308 free, 239480 used, 1733976 buff/cache
KiB Swap: 4726172 total, 4726172 free, 0 used. 1740396 avail Mem
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
13341 rd 20 0 12072 7196 3716 S 3.6 0.3 0:01.33 wget
7221 root 20 0 62236 3508 2468 S 2.9 0.2 394:36.44 owserver
1257 rd 20 0 4036 2304 2052 S 2.0 0.1 945:39.61 reed-
contact-mo
7687 rd 20 0 4712 2508 1596 S 2.0 0.1 571:54.03 monitor.sh
13597 rd 20 0 7212 2900 2276 R 1.6 0.1 0:00.53 top
1040 asterisk 20 0 221968 58292 30316 S 1.3 2.8 565:37.76 asterisk
17 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.7 0.0 434:16.89 ksoftirqd/1
10 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 0.3 0.0 94:31.09 rcu_sched
202 root 20 0 27144 6192 5760 S 0.3 0.3 89:57.07 systemd-
journal
8678 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.3 0.0 0:22.47 kworker/
2:2H-kb
21622 root 20 0 0 0 0 I 0.3 0.0 0:01.57 kworker/
u8:3-ev
32581 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.3 0.0 0:18.03 kworker/
0:1H-kb
1 root 20 0 26672 5236 3852 S 0.0 0.3 2:42.16 systemd
2 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:07.14 kthreadd
3 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 rcu_gp
4 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 rcu_par_gp
8 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.0 0.0 0:00.00
mm_percpu_wq
9 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 4:43.82 ksoftirqd/0
11 root 20 0 0 0 0 I 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 rcu_bh
12 root rt 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 2:43.11 migration/0
So in summary:
-> The uplink of the cubox to the internet is slow (<10% of available
bandwidth)
-> The cubox can run on the physical interface (the0) much higher traffic (as
shown on VLAN 7)
-> Another x86 host can run much higher traffic into the Internet
Any idea on what could restrict the bandwidth on the Cubox uplink is very
welcome. Also any ideas to diagnose the issue further would be useful for me.
Many thanks
Rainer
--
Rainer Dorsch
http://bokomoko.de/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-28 05:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yoIm5-3FP-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #211792 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
I can tell you that i have precisely this issue in Chicago. But the fact is that for me it was a result of rate-limiting at the IP provider ATT. It is not necessarily related directly, but senior citizens :-) may recall the differential up/down bandwidth on ISDN. At my last apartment i had fiber directly into my bedroom. Here it is over copper to the building wiring. I took a 25% hit on bandwidth up and down. I yelled at them for a rate reduction, but no dice. On Sat, Jul 27, 2019, 8:24 AM Rainer Dorsch <ml@bokomoko.de> wrote: > Hi, > > I have a stretch box configured as VLAN router (Cubox -i2ex). There is a > drastic difference between the bandwidth of the uplink (VLAN1) and the > downlinks (VLAN 2 to 7): > > On 192.168.7.1 (VLAN 7: eth0.7) I see arround 9 MB/s in a simple test: > rd@home:~$ wget -O /dev/null http://fs/debian-9.3.0-amd64-netinst.iso > [...] (9.08 MB/s) > rd@home:~$ > > On 192.168.0.30 (VLAN 1: eth0.1) is see less than 10%: > rd@home:~$ wget -O /dev/null > https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz > --2019-07-27 14:46:38-- > https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz > [...] (339KB/s) > > To prove that it has nothing to do with the uplink (there is a Fritzbox > 6430) > itself, I connected another machine on same VLAN 1 (192.168.0.203). So > overall, the network looks like this > > > Internet > | > | > Fritz-Box > | > | 192.168.0.203 > |--------------------------------------- x86 > | > | 192.168.0.30 > | > Cubox i > | > | 192.168.7.* > | > > Note, the Cubox-i has only 1 physical interface, drawn are the virtual > interface. > > The x86 machine reaches also a much higher network bandwidth: > > rd@h370:~/tmp.nobackup$ wget -O /dev/null > https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/ > linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz > <https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz> > [...] (5,49 MB/s) > rd@h370:~/tmp.nobackup$ > > I did run ifstat to confirm that there is no other traffic which consumes > all the > bandwidth: > > rd@home:/etc/shorewall$ ifstat -i eth0.1 1 > eth0.1 > KB/s in KB/s out > 495.00 16.34 > 417.14 16.03 > 484.33 16.53 > 384.80 11.96 > 393.33 12.67 > 632.59 17.68 > 607.90 17.91 > 354.39 12.00 > 678.58 20.97 > 1119.24 26.88 > 1185.20 27.27 > 925.91 21.84 > 1245.82 27.88 > 940.69 26.06 > 1023.72 26.89 > 1114.13 26.33 > 997.74 24.56 > 876.72 19.49 > 1167.56 27.73 > 906.41 24.30 > 1127.62 27.36 > 919.79 20.01 > 915.31 20.95 > 990.86 23.97 > 1119.22 26.94 > 905.54 26.40 > 1143.21 28.44 > 1096.15 26.98 > 924.62 24.89 > 1076.53 24.87 > 1004.04 23.99 > 811.11 23.13 > 983.71 24.46 > 885.05 23.19 > 1052.26 43.33 > 1230.55 37.11 > 1517.61 33.67 > 818.60 24.37 > 1057.24 26.63 > 1131.38 26.47 > 1278.43 30.12 > 1123.24 24.31 > 788.14 21.74 > 757.56 23.86 > 1135.29 27.91 > 1161.76 25.15 > 1465.32 32.04 > 1175.41 26.16 > 1371.36 31.56 > 811.73 21.70 > 540.97 16.91 > 381.78 20.95 > 306.44 13.07 > 378.02 12.93 > 603.65 16.67 > 418.31 16.35 > 393.71 16.46 > 479.89 15.05 > 436.74 13.85 > 395.96 12.05 > 476.41 14.51 > 470.09 18.23 > 322.02 12.20 > 427.35 14.33 > 464.25 14.39 > 404.19 11.09 > 999.41 24.39 > 931.23 24.89 > > Also top does not show any obvious overload: > > rd@home:~$ top > top - 14:51:53 up 34 days, 1:18, 3 users, load average: 1.10, 1.11, > 1.24 > Tasks: 177 total, 2 running, 125 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie > %Cpu(s): 5.2 us, 5.2 sy, 0.0 ni, 87.9 id, 0.2 wa, 0.0 hi, 1.5 si, > 0.0 > st > KiB Mem : 2062764 total, 89308 free, 239480 used, 1733976 > buff/cache > KiB Swap: 4726172 total, 4726172 free, 0 used. 1740396 avail > Mem > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ > COMMAND > > > 13341 rd 20 0 12072 7196 3716 S 3.6 0.3 0:01.33 wget > > > > 7221 root 20 0 62236 3508 2468 S 2.9 0.2 394:36.44 > owserver > > > 1257 rd 20 0 4036 2304 2052 S 2.0 0.1 945:39.61 reed- > contact-mo > > > 7687 rd 20 0 4712 2508 1596 S 2.0 0.1 571:54.03 > monitor.sh > > > 13597 rd 20 0 7212 2900 2276 R 1.6 0.1 0:00.53 top > > > > 1040 asterisk 20 0 221968 58292 30316 S 1.3 2.8 565:37.76 > asterisk > > > 17 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.7 0.0 434:16.89 > ksoftirqd/1 > > > 10 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 0.3 0.0 94:31.09 > rcu_sched > > > 202 root 20 0 27144 6192 5760 S 0.3 0.3 89:57.07 systemd- > journal > > > 8678 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.3 0.0 0:22.47 kworker/ > 2:2H-kb > > > 21622 root 20 0 0 0 0 I 0.3 0.0 0:01.57 > kworker/ > u8:3-ev > > > 32581 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.3 0.0 0:18.03 > kworker/ > 0:1H-kb > > > 1 root 20 0 26672 5236 3852 S 0.0 0.3 2:42.16 > systemd > > > 2 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:07.14 > kthreadd > > > 3 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 rcu_gp > > > > 4 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 > rcu_par_gp > > > 8 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 > mm_percpu_wq > > > 9 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 4:43.82 > ksoftirqd/0 > > > 11 root 20 0 0 0 0 I 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 rcu_bh > > > > 12 root rt 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 2:43.11 > migration/0 > > So in summary: > -> The uplink of the cubox to the internet is slow (<10% of available > bandwidth) > -> The cubox can run on the physical interface (the0) much higher traffic > (as > shown on VLAN 7) > -> Another x86 host can run much higher traffic into the Internet > > Any idea on what could restrict the bandwidth on the Cubox uplink is very > welcome. Also any ideas to diagnose the issue further would be useful for > me. > > Many thanks > Rainer > > > -- > Rainer Dorsch > http://bokomoko.de/ > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rainer Dorsch <ml@bokomoko.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-28 11:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yoNF8-79s-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #211811 |
[please follow-up on debian-arm since it is an imx6 specific issue]
Hi,
I found in the meantime
https://boundarydevices.com/i-mx6-ethernet/
describes most likely the issue I see, in particular the transfer rate
degradation to 3 Mbits/s is what I see
root@linaro-nano:~# tsecs=2 incr=200 ./bwtest.sh
----------bandwidth 200
[ 4] 0.0- 2.0 sec 48.1 MBytes 203 Mbits/sec 0.061 ms 164/34479 (0.48%)
[ 3] 0.0- 2.0 sec 48.3 MBytes 203 Mbits/sec 0.034 ms 0/34483 (0%)
----------bandwidth 400
[ 4] 0.0- 2.0 sec 96.5 MBytes 405 Mbits/sec 0.040 ms 67/68911
(0.097%)
[ 3] 0.0- 1.9 sec 93.9 MBytes 406 Mbits/sec 0.035 ms 1990/68965 (2.9%)
----------bandwidth 600
[ 4] 0.0- 2.0 sec 110 MBytes 460 Mbits/sec 0.030 ms 234/78615 (0.3%)
[ 3] 0.0- 2.3 sec 110 MBytes 410 Mbits/sec 15.672 ms 26703/105262 (25%)
----------bandwidth 800
[ 4] 0.0- 2.0 sec 110 MBytes 461 Mbits/sec 0.033 ms 0/78511 (0%)
[ 3] 0.0- 2.2 sec 2.91 MBytes 11.1 Mbits/sec 101.865 ms 140266/142342
(99%)
----------bandwidth 1000
[ 4] 0.0- 2.0 sec 110 MBytes 461 Mbits/sec 0.033 ms 0/78383 (0%)
[ 3] 0.0- 0.2 sec 90.4 KBytes 3.18 Mbits/sec 110.420 ms 141295/141358
(1e+02%)
in addition, I see
root@home:~# ethtool eth0
Settings for eth0:
Supported ports: [ TP MII ]
Supported link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Supported pause frame use: No
Supports auto-negotiation: Yes
Advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Advertised pause frame use: No
Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
Link partner advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Link partner advertised pause frame use: Symmetric Receive-only
Link partner advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
Speed: 1000Mb/s
Duplex: Full
Port: MII
PHYAD: 0
Transceiver: internal
Auto-negotiation: on
Supports Wake-on: d
Wake-on: d
Link detected: yes
root@home:~#
shows the same output as in their before scenario causing the bandwidth
degradation.
Is anybody else seeing this with an imx6 device like the cubox-i?
Thanks
Rainer
PS:
What still puzzles me is that I see this issue only if I leave the subnet.
Possibly there are other mechanism to limit the traffic in case of overruns on a
local network, but here I am guessing (?)
Am Sonntag, 28. Juli 2019, 05:46:36 CEST schrieb Nicholas Geovanis:
> I can tell you that i have precisely this issue in Chicago. But the fact is
> that for me it was a result of rate-limiting at the IP provider ATT. It is
> not necessarily related directly, but senior citizens :-) may recall the
> differential up/down bandwidth on ISDN.
> At my last apartment i had fiber directly into my bedroom. Here it is over
> copper to the building wiring. I took a 25% hit on bandwidth up and down. I
> yelled at them for a rate reduction, but no dice.
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019, 8:24 AM Rainer Dorsch <ml@bokomoko.de> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a stretch box configured as VLAN router (Cubox -i2ex). There is a
> > drastic difference between the bandwidth of the uplink (VLAN1) and the
> > downlinks (VLAN 2 to 7):
> >
> > On 192.168.7.1 (VLAN 7: eth0.7) I see arround 9 MB/s in a simple test:
> > rd@home:~$ wget -O /dev/null http://fs/debian-9.3.0-amd64-netinst.iso
> > [...] (9.08 MB/s)
> > rd@home:~$
> >
> > On 192.168.0.30 (VLAN 1: eth0.1) is see less than 10%:
> > rd@home:~$ wget -O /dev/null
> > https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz
> > --2019-07-27 14:46:38--
> > https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz
> > [...] (339KB/s)
> >
> > To prove that it has nothing to do with the uplink (there is a Fritzbox
> > 6430)
> > itself, I connected another machine on same VLAN 1 (192.168.0.203). So
> > overall, the network looks like this
> >
> >
> > Internet
> >
> >
> > Fritz-Box
> >
> > | 192.168.0.203
> > |
> > |--------------------------------------- x86
> > |
> > | 192.168.0.30
> >
> > Cubox i
> >
> > | 192.168.7.*
> >
> > Note, the Cubox-i has only 1 physical interface, drawn are the virtual
> > interface.
> >
> > The x86 machine reaches also a much higher network bandwidth:
> >
> > rd@h370:~/tmp.nobackup$ wget -O /dev/null
> > https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/
> > linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz
> > <https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-5.3-rc1.tar.gz>
> > [...] (5,49 MB/s)
> > rd@h370:~/tmp.nobackup$
> >
> > I did run ifstat to confirm that there is no other traffic which consumes
> > all the
> > bandwidth:
> >
> > rd@home:/etc/shorewall$ ifstat -i eth0.1 1
> >
> > eth0.1
> >
> > KB/s in KB/s out
> >
> > 495.00 16.34
> > 417.14 16.03
> > 484.33 16.53
> > 384.80 11.96
> > 393.33 12.67
> > 632.59 17.68
> > 607.90 17.91
> > 354.39 12.00
> > 678.58 20.97
> >
> > 1119.24 26.88
> > 1185.20 27.27
> >
> > 925.91 21.84
> >
> > 1245.82 27.88
> >
> > 940.69 26.06
> >
> > 1023.72 26.89
> > 1114.13 26.33
> >
> > 997.74 24.56
> > 876.72 19.49
> >
> > 1167.56 27.73
> >
> > 906.41 24.30
> >
> > 1127.62 27.36
> >
> > 919.79 20.01
> > 915.31 20.95
> > 990.86 23.97
> >
> > 1119.22 26.94
> >
> > 905.54 26.40
> >
> > 1143.21 28.44
> > 1096.15 26.98
> >
> > 924.62 24.89
> >
> > 1076.53 24.87
> > 1004.04 23.99
> >
> > 811.11 23.13
> > 983.71 24.46
> > 885.05 23.19
> >
> > 1052.26 43.33
> > 1230.55 37.11
> > 1517.61 33.67
> >
> > 818.60 24.37
> >
> > 1057.24 26.63
> > 1131.38 26.47
> > 1278.43 30.12
> > 1123.24 24.31
> >
> > 788.14 21.74
> > 757.56 23.86
> >
> > 1135.29 27.91
> > 1161.76 25.15
> > 1465.32 32.04
> > 1175.41 26.16
> > 1371.36 31.56
> >
> > 811.73 21.70
> > 540.97 16.91
> > 381.78 20.95
> > 306.44 13.07
> > 378.02 12.93
> > 603.65 16.67
> > 418.31 16.35
> > 393.71 16.46
> > 479.89 15.05
> > 436.74 13.85
> > 395.96 12.05
> > 476.41 14.51
> > 470.09 18.23
> > 322.02 12.20
> > 427.35 14.33
> > 464.25 14.39
> > 404.19 11.09
> > 999.41 24.39
> > 931.23 24.89
> >
> > Also top does not show any obvious overload:
> >
> > rd@home:~$ top
> > top - 14:51:53 up 34 days, 1:18, 3 users, load average: 1.10, 1.11,
> > 1.24
> > Tasks: 177 total, 2 running, 125 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
> > %Cpu(s): 5.2 us, 5.2 sy, 0.0 ni, 87.9 id, 0.2 wa, 0.0 hi, 1.5 si,
> > 0.0
> > st
> > KiB Mem : 2062764 total, 89308 free, 239480 used, 1733976
> > buff/cache
> > KiB Swap: 4726172 total, 4726172 free, 0 used. 1740396 avail
> > Mem
> >
> > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+
> >
> > COMMAND
> >
> >
> > 13341 rd 20 0 12072 7196 3716 S 3.6 0.3 0:01.33 wget
> >
> >
> >
> > 7221 root 20 0 62236 3508 2468 S 2.9 0.2 394:36.44
> > owserver
> >
> >
> > 1257 rd 20 0 4036 2304 2052 S 2.0 0.1 945:39.61 reed-
> > contact-mo
> >
> >
> > 7687 rd 20 0 4712 2508 1596 S 2.0 0.1 571:54.03
> > monitor.sh
> >
> >
> > 13597 rd 20 0 7212 2900 2276 R 1.6 0.1 0:00.53 top
> >
> >
> >
> > 1040 asterisk 20 0 221968 58292 30316 S 1.3 2.8 565:37.76
> > asterisk
> >
> > 17 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.7 0.0 434:16.89
> >
> > ksoftirqd/1
> >
> > 10 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 0.3 0.0 94:31.09
> >
> > rcu_sched
> >
> > 202 root 20 0 27144 6192 5760 S 0.3 0.3 89:57.07
> > systemd-
> >
> > journal
> >
> >
> > 8678 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.3 0.0 0:22.47
> > kworker/
> > 2:2H-kb
> >
> >
> > 21622 root 20 0 0 0 0 I 0.3 0.0 0:01.57
> > kworker/
> > u8:3-ev
> >
> >
> > 32581 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.3 0.0 0:18.03
> > kworker/
> > 0:1H-kb
> >
> > 1 root 20 0 26672 5236 3852 S 0.0 0.3 2:42.16
> >
> > systemd
> >
> > 2 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:07.14
> >
> > kthreadd
> >
> > 3 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 rcu_gp
> >
> >
> >
> > 4 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.0 0.0 0:00.00
> >
> > rcu_par_gp
> >
> > 8 root 0 -20 0 0 0 I 0.0 0.0 0:00.00
> >
> > mm_percpu_wq
> >
> > 9 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 4:43.82
> >
> > ksoftirqd/0
> >
> > 11 root 20 0 0 0 0 I 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 rcu_bh
> >
> >
> >
> > 12 root rt 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 2:43.11
> >
> > migration/0
> >
> > So in summary:
> > -> The uplink of the cubox to the internet is slow (<10% of available
> > bandwidth)
> > -> The cubox can run on the physical interface (the0) much higher traffic
> > (as
> > shown on VLAN 7)
> > -> Another x86 host can run much higher traffic into the Internet
> >
> > Any idea on what could restrict the bandwidth on the Cubox uplink is very
> > welcome. Also any ideas to diagnose the issue further would be useful for
> > me.
> >
> > Many thanks
> > Rainer
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rainer Dorsch
> > http://bokomoko.de/
--
Rainer Dorsch
http://bokomoko.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web