From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <mityapetuhov@gmail.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29FF46A543 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 05:00:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 176261B08F for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 05:00:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id DAD271B082 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 05:00:08 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id m22so54638625lfg.5 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 2021 21:00:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=KZCFEAyoIT6AMM2UYEW6OUJJzhazvt6Cn0l+0/qM91U=; b=H5B8I1ppDwPbPRiG25cU88cADJNLiiuaKgkp/7QuYHV2t328VT6g28oLC8nw/zq6lL xci03yGAvIIucX/w3zLQJ5yfpgVESRo2Rkyq4ioMWbYcPQIVMUeBMUmcNg9Hxx1JuD5f gJ9ocBe0KGmKRDPqakRFKXxX/VD5WjOTxy6oxO8Jgy4WUO/IlvL4I6ivUIP1Ga4KF7Qj xZ64jsolSRRnvAl7Cn8LoQtjMlHoeHVkL8ySEo0S2+mid3jPl4JVXozj9S5ahQgfB8bT pUOm0iYBe40Ji0IHZcn8WV0AEe24MaJvvIOiSsCt2nHv5CvdKeopoNb13ZAioIY13vn8 9Flw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=KZCFEAyoIT6AMM2UYEW6OUJJzhazvt6Cn0l+0/qM91U=; b=AaM4f4J/rkWEg4rivRDcrVJzeeaQc5jfsVJiqwEjdGD1NFOs81ILyQy0/o9VSQZFyq +7pvF6FM9segZRJ60Ylv+KDcFyPH/21hkvhjYuWJtkecpFRrixdRQw2W+x2MGhExbC6J lZsXx5J7r8hHi4Jey4xoFcrEcVbwZt5IYeOa7Yzp27SyIvio0KslT8uRaW4lNh9nuDtf 93QAeKr7P7FNF3bebsHGf+bVDMd3532k3hnGA1LfXM8jAOC7VjJ8cVoIvvqYFD0OgjnF L8tRX4JVIIecBV9StDiE8Pf3BGcDcroRgTuLhccusJzX44X9xA8TlfdHIrm7vSdK+OKC G6hQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531qbtt2beR9aAW0nSL2SWpDZNoCsRx1ebSPLaPoBfFnYt684uTX SaPfTcypU6lRIfvVbFpVqFLKyTFTgd0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyq/NUTes7nJcR4I41w8QG/HwwajaiW8xY1lDQePG0VGEUnkphlTVG0I71lVANG51zaNFQJgA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:130f:: with SMTP id x15mr6843846lfu.259.1615780801951; Sun, 14 Mar 2021 21:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.42] ([185.34.183.29]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c14sm2512475lfp.269.2021.03.14.21.00.00 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 14 Mar 2021 21:00:01 -0700 (PDT) To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com References: <CAGP6PO+ufdPXvKRi=B=yhjsZWCnQJ2HFiZ=iJ0t586+n38F42Q@mail.gmail.com> From: Dmitry Petuhov <mityapetuhov@gmail.com> Message-ID: <67f6fcec-ae6b-2ebe-a104-84f4c2a6008f@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 07:00:00 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <CAGP6PO+ufdPXvKRi=B=yhjsZWCnQJ2HFiZ=iJ0t586+n38F42Q@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [PVE-User] The low network throughput obsered on Open vSwitch bridge. X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-user>, <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user>, <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 04:00:40 -0000 Hello. That's how TCP throughput mediation works. In basic case, you cannot canot fully saturate link by two opposite TCP connections regardless of using Open vSwitch. There's one dirty hack that can override this behavior: you could use qdisc on interface that prioritize packets that have ACK bit set over those that don't in same connection. It will saturate link, but may lead to other issues on certain types of traffic (because of packet reordering), so [almost] nobody use it in real life. Multiple parallel connections in same direction also saturate link more evenly. 15.03.2021 6:33, Hongyi Zhao пишет: > I install the pve on an I7 8886U machine with 6 full-duplex gigabit > network cards. The network configuration of the pve host is shown > below: > > <quote> > root@pve:~# cat /etc/network/interfaces > # network interface settings; autogenerated > # Please do NOT modify this file directly, unless you know what > # you're doing. > # > # If you want to manage parts of the network configuration manually, > # please utilize the 'source' or 'source-directory' directives to do > # so. > # PVE will preserve these directives, but will NOT read its network > # configuration from sourced files, so do not attempt to move any of > # the PVE managed interfaces into external files! > > auto lo > iface lo inet loopback > > auto enp1s0 > iface enp1s0 inet manual > ovs_type OVSPort > ovs_bridge vmbr0 > > auto enp2s0 > iface enp2s0 inet manual > ovs_type OVSPort > ovs_bridge vmbr1 > > iface enp3s0 inet manual > iface enp4s0 inet manual > iface enp5s0 inet manual > iface enp6s0 inet manual > > auto vmbr0 > iface vmbr0 inet static > address 192.168.10.254/24 > gateway 192.168.10.1 > ovs_type OVSBridge > ovs_ports enp1s0 > > auto vmbr1 > iface vmbr1 inet manual > ovs_type OVSBridge > ovs_ports enp2s0 > </quote> > > Now I use scp to transfer file from pve (192.168.10.254) to another > physical machine (192.168.10.100) or vice versa, but run the following > two commands in order: > > root@pve:~# scp macOS-10.13.qcow2 werner@192.168.10.100:/dev/null > werner@192.168.10.100's password: > macOS-10.13.qcow2 37% 6209MB 83.6MB/s 02:01 ETA > > werner@X10DAi:~$ scp macOS-10.13.qcow2 root@192.168.10.254:/dev/null > root@192.168.10.254's password: > macOS-10.13.qcow2 30% 1408MB > 53.5MB/s 01:00 ETA > > As you can see, the show different network transfer speed. OTOH, if I > run the above two commands simultaneously, the results will look like > the following: > > werner@X10DAi:~$ scp macOS-10.13.qcow2 root@192.168.10.254:/dev/null > root@192.168.10.254's password: > macOS-10.13.qcow2 17% 811MB > 26.0MB/s 02:26 ETA > > root@pve:~# scp macOS-10.13.qcow2 werner@192.168.10.100:/dev/null > werner@192.168.10.100's password: > macOS-10.13.qcow2 13% 2205MB 51.7MB/s 04:34 ETA > > > Any hints for the above observations and results will be highly appreciated. > > Regards