Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Netflix Optimized FreeBSD's Network Stack More Than Doubled AMD EPYC Performance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by _Alex_ View Post
    Is 190-195gb/sec the max Epyc and Xeons can do due to Octa-channel DDR bandwidth which also happens to be in the same range?


    Max Bandwidth:
    190.7 GiB/s
    If so wouldn't it help if CPU manufacturers had HBM2 chips?
    Note that a GB (and GiB) is 8 times more than a Gb, so there is plenty of spare memory bandwidth available.

    From the presentation, it sounds like the limiting factor is actually the NICs. The intel server has 2x100 Gb/s cards, so it's close to maxing out. The AMD server was setup with 4x100 Gb/s cards, but were limited to 50 Gb/s each so they are also essentially maxing out.

    That was because apparently the AMD motherboard only had pcie/3 x8 links to some of the cards. I assume x8 to 2 of them and x16 to the other 2. He mentioned that it was capable of going over 200Gb/s if he allowed the faster network cards to reach their faster speeds.

    As far as the CPU utilization (and memory/numa bandwidth) goes, it seems like 300Gb/s would be very achievable, assuming no other big limitations came up to prevent that.
    Edit: I think the NVME drives bandwidth is matched closely with the network cards, so increasing one would need to be matched with the other. Probably going to PCIE gen 4 is what would really need to happen to increase much more.
    Last edited by smitty3268; 09 November 2019, 05:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • _Alex_
    replied
    Is 190-195gb/sec the max Epyc and Xeons can do due to Octa-channel DDR bandwidth which also happens to be in the same range?


    Max Bandwidth:
    190.7 GiB/s
    If so wouldn't it help if CPU manufacturers had HBM2 chips?

    Leave a comment:


  • c2p_
    replied
    Originally posted by NateHubbard View Post

    While that does seem reasonable, it also wouldn't be the first time that a business wasn't willing to hand over their operating efficiencies to any competitor that wanted it.
    Netflix has a very interesting tech blog when they share a lot of their "operating efficiencies" https://medium.com/netflix-techblog. They also created and shared a lot of their libraries for building big "cloud" apps https://netflix.github.io/.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndyChow
    replied
    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post

    Could you explain this a bit more? What AMD performance tools are available for FreeBSD but not Linux?
    None that I know of, and my inital post doesn't make much sense. I'm not always wrong, but when I am I admit it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Space Heater
    replied
    Originally posted by drewg123 View Post

    KTLS affinity (trivial): https://reviews.freebsd.org/D21648
    TCP_REUSEPORT_LB_NUMA: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D21636
    Thanks for both replies, I appreciate it.

    Leave a comment:


  • F.Ultra
    replied
    Originally posted by GreenReaper View Post

    Not 100% sure that is the case. First off, I presume the API bring used is actually sendfile, not sentfile as the article states.

    ​​​​​My understanding is that this is only efficient when no transformations such as encryption are required (hence you can do zero-copy transfer), and in that case the data must be pre-encrypted, probably in chunks. The cost of encryption would then be amortized over who else accesses the content, although decryption has a constant cost per viewer. Otherwise you might as well use buffered I/O because sendfile will degrade to that anyway.

    Of course, I could be wrong, it's late. :-)
    In any case it's a non issue since they do it because they are forced to (by the contracts with the media providers) and not because they want to.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreenReaper
    replied
    Originally posted by bpetty View Post
    It would be even faster if they weren't wasting so many cycles on encryption.
    Not 100% sure that is the case. First off, I presume the API bring used is actually sendfile, not sentfile as the article states.

    ​​​​​My understanding is that this is only efficient when no transformations such as encryption are required (hence you can do zero-copy transfer), and in that case the data must be pre-encrypted, probably in chunks. The cost of encryption would then be amortized over who else accesses the content, although decryption has a constant cost per viewer. Otherwise you might as well use buffered I/O because sendfile will degrade to that anyway.

    Of course, I could be wrong, it's late. :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Templar82
    replied

    Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
    Why these absolute paranoid posts?.
    Its not uncommon for companies to modify BSDs and not contribute back to the project, hardly paranoia.

    Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
    First off you could have investigated the status of the patches.
    Well I assumed they did not exist and therefore could not be investigated. Instead I have created discussion, go me.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrugiero
    replied
    Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
    The kernel is GPLv2. They only have to share the source with people who legally received the corresponding binaries. That's the whole reason the AGPL was created.

    What you're thinking of does exist though... it's the reason that Open Watcom C/C++ can't get into Debian or Fedora package repositories. (The Sybase Open Watcom Public License requires you to publish the source to your changes to the compiler, even if you're only distributing the modified binaries within your company. Debian and Red Had have decided that doesn't meet their definition of a Free Software License... I assume because it is a de facto violation of the "No discrimination against fields of endeavor, like commercial use." clause in the Debian Free Software Guidelines.)
    You're right, I forgot about internal use not counting as redistribution.

    Leave a comment:


  • drewg123
    replied
    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post

    Drew, is there a mailing list or review site to watch development of this sort of stuff? if it's on https://reviews.freebsd.org/ - then I'm not able to find it.
    KTLS affinity (trivial): https://reviews.freebsd.org/D21648
    TCP_REUSEPORT_LB_NUMA: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D21636

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X