# [OmniOS-discuss] Low latency networking

Chris Nagele nagele at wildbit.com
Wed Aug 8 10:01:29 EDT 2012

- Previous message: [OmniOS-discuss] Low latency networking
- Next message: [OmniOS-discuss] Dtrace errors
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

    Nice. So the actual latency is really short. Now that I have dtrace
    working I'll give superping.d a try as well.

    Thanks!

    On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Richard Elling
    <richard.elling at richardelling.com> wrote:
    > Hi Chris,
    >
    > On Aug 6, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Chris Nagele wrote:
    >
    > Hi Eric,
    >
    > Richard had me run:
    >
    > truss -dD ping -s 10.135.1.11
    >
    > From this result I can't seem to find anything useful. The longest
    > time is taken at the top:
    >
    > 0.0556  0.0000 write(1, "\n", 1)                               = 1
    > 0.9975  0.9419     Received signal #14, SIGALRM, in pollsys() [caught]
    >
    >
    > It is already over by now. Look for the difference between the first
    > sendto(3, ...) and
    > recvmsg(3,...) something like:
    >
    >  0.0210  0.0013 write(1, " P I N G   1 9 2 . 1 6 8".., 34)      = 34
    >  0.0212  0.0002 sendto(3, "\b\0F6 ^\r1F\0\0   U1F P".., 64, 32768,
    > 0x0806BD88, 16) = 64
    >  0.0214  0.0002 sigaction(SIGALRM, 0x08047BA0, 0x08047C20)      = 0
    >  0.0215  0.0001 lwp_sigmask(SIG_SETMASK, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000,
    > 0x00000000) = 0xFFBFFEFF [0xFFFFFFFF]
    >  0.0216  0.0001 alarm(1)                                        = 0
    >  0.0220  0.0004 pollsys(0x08047AA0, 1, 0x00000000, 0x00000000)  = 1
    >  0.0222  0.0002 recvmsg(3, 0x08047C10, 32768)                   = 84
    >
    >  -- richard
    >
    > 0.9976  0.0001 pollsys(0x08047B50, 1, 0x00000000, 0x00000000)  Err#4 EINTR
    > 0.9976  0.0000 lwp_sigmask(SIG_SETMASK, 0x00002000, 0x00000000,
    > 0x00000000, 0x00000000) = 0xFFBFFEFF [0xFFFFFFFF]
    > 0.9976  0.0000 sendto(3, "\b\0 AA3068A\001 lE51F P".., 64, 32768,
    > 0x0807BA90, 16) = 64
    > 0.9977  0.0001 alarm(1)                                        = 0
    > 0.9977  0.0000 setcontext(0x08047660)
    > 0.9978  0.0001 pollsys(0x08047B50, 1, 0x00000000, 0x00000000)  = 1
    > 0.9978  0.0000 recvmsg(3, 0x08047CD0, 32768)                   = 84
    > 0.9978  0.0000 lwp_sigmask(SIG_SETMASK, 0x00002000, 0x00000000,
    > 0x00000000, 0x00000000) = 0xFFBFFEFF [0xFFFFFFFF]
    > 0.9978  0.0000 lwp_sigmask(SIG_SETMASK, 0x00000000, 0x00000000,
    >
    > 0x00000000, 0x00000000) = 0xFFBFFEFF [0xFFFFFFFF]
    > 64 bytes from 10.135.1.11:  0.9979       0.0001 write(1, " 6 4   b y t
    > e s   f r o".., 27)      = 27
    > icmp_seq=1.  0.9979      0.0000 write(1, " i c m p _ s e q = 1 .  ",
    > 12)        = 12
    > time=0.225 ms 0.9980     0.0001 write(1, " t i m e = 0 . 2 2 5   m"..,
    > 13)      = 13
    >
    > Looking at snoop, I see the following:
    >
    > 18.34001  10.135.1.10 -> debian-host  length:   98  ICMP Echo request
    > (ID: 1780 Sequence number: 5)
    > 18.34019  debian-host -> 10.135.1.10  length:   98  ICMP Echo reply
    > (ID: 1780 Sequence number: 5)
    > 18.34641  debian-host -> *            length:   60  ARP C Who is
    > 10.135.1.10, 10.135.1.10 ?
    > 18.34643  10.135.1.10 -> debian-host  length:   42  ARP R
    > 10.135.1.10, 10.135.1.10 is 90:e2:ba:f:ce:ec
    > 19.34000  10.135.1.10 -> debian-host  length:   98  ICMP Echo request
    > (ID: 1780 Sequence number: 6)
    > 19.34018  debian-host -> 10.135.1.10  length:   98  ICMP Echo reply
    > (ID: 1780 Sequence number: 6)
    > 20.33998  10.135.1.10 -> debian-host  length:   98  ICMP Echo request
    > (ID: 1780 Sequence number: 7)
    > 20.34015  debian-host -> 10.135.1.10  length:   98  ICMP Echo reply
    > (ID: 1780 Sequence number: 7)
    >
    > Which all looks pretty normal as well. I might give superping.d a try
    > as well (http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/7479-Dont-misuse-ping!.html).
    >
    > Let me know if you have any other ideas.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Chris
    >
    >
    > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Eric Sproul <esproul at omniti.com> wrote:
    >
    > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Chris Nagele <nagele at wildbit.com> wrote:
    >
    > For some reason though, ping times from OmniOS to Debian are still
    >
    > much slower, above 0.2ms. I know it is nit picking, but we invested in
    >
    > 10g for lower latency, so I am trying to get the most out of it. From
    >
    > Debian to OmniOS I get about 0.08ms still.
    >
    >
    > Hi Chris,
    >
    > It'd be great to see some tcpdumps of this traffic.  The most curious
    >
    > thing to me is that you see differences in RTT between Debian and
    >
    > OmniOS systems just by switching sender and receiver.  Perhaps there's
    >
    > something about the payload of a typical ping packet between the
    >
    > systems.
    >
    >
    > Eric
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    >
    > OmniOS-discuss mailing list
    >
    > OmniOS-discuss at lists.omniti.com
    >
    > http://lists.omniti.com/mailman/listinfo/omnios-discuss
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > OmniOS-discuss mailing list
    > OmniOS-discuss at lists.omniti.com
    > http://lists.omniti.com/mailman/listinfo/omnios-discuss
    >
    >
    > --
    > ZFS Performance and Training
    > Richard.Elling at RichardElling.com
    > +1-760-896-4422
    >
    >
    >

- Previous message: [OmniOS-discuss] Low latency networking
- Next message: [OmniOS-discuss] Dtrace errors
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the OmniOS-discuss mailing list