Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BPF Timers To Intel Additions Lead The Networking Changes With Linux 5.15

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

  • BPF Timers To Intel Additions Lead The Networking Changes With Linux 5.15

    Phoronix: BPF Timers To Intel Additions Lead The Networking Changes With Linux 5.15

    The networking subsystem updates for the recently opened Linux 5.15 merge window have landed...

    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa....15-Networking

  • #2
    Does e1000e only support Gigabit Ethernet?
    How long is Intel going to keep on with Gigabit Ethernet (for consumer desktop) and offer 2.5 Gbit/s, 5 Gbit/s, and 10 Gbit/s.

    Now USB4 is at 40 Gbit/s, and Ethernet is rather slow in comparison. Also Gigabit Ethernet is very old, it is from 1999 so it is 22 years old now.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
      Does e1000e only support Gigabit Ethernet?
      How long is Intel going to keep on with Gigabit Ethernet (for consumer desktop) and offer 2.5 Gbit/s, 5 Gbit/s, and 10 Gbit/s.

      Now USB4 is at 40 Gbit/s, and Ethernet is rather slow in comparison. Also Gigabit Ethernet is very old, it is from 1999 so it is 22 years old now.
      For most consumers, WiFi and ISP are the bottlenecks so that hampers adoption of anything faster. Most consumers don't need their network to be much faster than their internet.

      I'm not including tech savvy people running their own backup servers, media streaming/HTPC, hosting their own content, etc. They're not most consumers....though that's starting to not be the case.

      A possibly better question is, "How long are governments not going to upgrade their infrastructure so their citizens can actually make use of faster network technologies so Intel actually has a reason to upgrade their hardware?".

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

        For most consumers, WiFi and ISP are the bottlenecks so that hampers adoption of anything faster. Most consumers don't need their network to be much faster than their internet.

        I'm not including tech savvy people running their own backup servers, media streaming/HTPC, hosting their own content, etc. They're not most consumers....though that's starting to not be the case.

        A possibly better question is, "How long are governments not going to upgrade their infrastructure so their citizens can actually make use of faster network technologies so Intel actually has a reason to upgrade their hardware?".
        I was thinking about a network-attached storage (NAS). Those are not so uncommon.

        Internet is quite fast, I have 250 mbit/s and its very fast for me, I was happy with me 100 mbit/s I had before too. ISPs offer 1 Gbit/s which is way faster than I need.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by uid313 View Post

          I was thinking about a network-attached storage (NAS). Those are not so uncommon.

          Internet is quite fast, I have 250 mbit/s and its very fast for me, I was happy with me 100 mbit/s I had before too. ISPs offer 1 Gbit/s which is way faster than I need.
          I'm jaded by the fact that I live in a broadband desert. Fastest speed available to me is 150mbit/s with a 2TB quota. It really sucks.

          But even with consumer NAS we're basically talking about a 5600rpm HDD hooked to a router because that's what the average person is going to buy...the crap on the shelf at Wal-Mart and Best Buy...a Linksys or TP-Link Router with USB3 and a USB enabled WD or Seagate 5600rpm HDD. That's consumer NAS. Best case scenario (read, write, or read/write) with that HDD doesn't even saturate a WiFi or USB3 connection let alone need a gigabit connection.

          Most people aren't running SSD or NVME mirrors as their NAS to be capable to use that much speed. That's the tech savvy crowd.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

            I'm jaded by the fact that I live in a broadband desert. Fastest speed available to me is 150mbit/s with a 2TB quota. It really sucks.

            But even with consumer NAS we're basically talking about a 5600rpm HDD hooked to a router because that's what the average person is going to buy...the crap on the shelf at Wal-Mart and Best Buy...a Linksys or TP-Link Router with USB3 and a USB enabled WD or Seagate 5600rpm HDD. That's consumer NAS. Best case scenario (read, write, or read/write) with that HDD doesn't even saturate a WiFi or USB3 connection let alone need a gigabit connection.

            Most people aren't running SSD or NVME mirrors as their NAS to be capable to use that much speed. That's the tech savvy crowd.
            I don't know, SSD for your NAS is increasingly becoming more affordable with WD Blue. There also some NAS like QNAP which seems popular.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by uid313 View Post

              I don't know, SSD for your NAS is increasingly becoming more affordable with WD Blue. There also some NAS like QNAP which seems popular.
              While I don't disagree, I still reckon that most consumers will slap a USB HDD onto their router and call it a day because that's the best size/storage ratio solution in regards to easy-to-use, off-the-shelf, plug & play consumer gear.

              Most non-savvy home users don't have a need for that fast of a NAS outside of convenience.

              QNAP is enterprise-grade, very tech savvy, ZFS solution. That's not for the average consumer.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                Now USB4 is at 40 Gbit/s, and Ethernet is rather slow in comparison.
                usb4 has short(and new) cable, gigabit ethernet works on cheap old cables(which are often buried inside walls) 100m long or more. 2.5gb and 5gb work on same cables though. 10gb needs new cables and silicon was expensive and power hungry last time i checked. but i'll try to have 10gb on my next motherboard. non-intel though
                Last edited by pal666; 01 September 2021, 03:51 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                  usb4 has short(and new) cable, gigabit ethernet works on cheap old cables(which are often buried inside walls) 100m long or more. 2.5gb and 5gb work on same cables though. 10gb needs new cables and silicon was expensive and power hungry last time i checked. but i'll try to have 10gb on my next motherboard. non-intel though
                  Of course Gigabit Ethernet works on old cables, Gigabit Ethernet is 22 years old.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                    But even with consumer NAS we're basically talking about a 5600rpm HDD hooked to a router because that's what the average person is going to buy...the crap on the shelf at Wal-Mart and Best Buy...a Linksys or TP-Link Router with USB3 and a USB enabled WD or Seagate 5600rpm HDD. That's consumer NAS. Best case scenario (read, write, or read/write) with that HDD doesn't even saturate a WiFi or USB3 connection let alone need a gigabit connection.

                    Most people aren't running SSD or NVME mirrors as their NAS to be capable to use that much speed. That's the tech savvy crowd.
                    Now maybe the router's CPU isn't fast enough, but modern "5400 RPM class" HDDs hung off USB 3.0 can easily saturate gigabit ethernet.

                    Code:
                    > sudo fio --readonly --name=read --direct=1 --ioengine=psync --readwrite=randread --randrepeat=0 --bs=16M --numjobs=1 --iodepth=1 --group_reporting=1 --time_based=1 --runtime=30 --filename=/dev/sde
                    read: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=(R) 16.0MiB-16.0MiB, (W) 16.0MiB-16.0MiB, (T) 16.0MiB-16.0MiB, ioengine=psync, iodepth=1
                    fio-3.21
                    Starting 1 process
                    Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)][100.0%][r=128MiB/s][r=8 IOPS][eta 00m:00s]
                    read: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=60891: Thu Sep 2 12:42:56 2021
                    read: IOPS=8, BW=132MiB/s (138MB/s)(3952MiB/30009msec)
                    clat (msec): min=87, max=235, avg=121.48, stdev=26.69
                    lat (msec): min=87, max=235, avg=121.48, stdev=26.69
                    clat percentiles (msec):
                    | 1.00th=[ 88], 5.00th=[ 95], 10.00th=[ 99], 20.00th=[ 102],
                    | 30.00th=[ 105], 40.00th=[ 108], 50.00th=[ 111], 60.00th=[ 117],
                    | 70.00th=[ 132], 80.00th=[ 142], 90.00th=[ 163], 95.00th=[ 174],
                    | 99.00th=[ 201], 99.50th=[ 226], 99.90th=[ 236], 99.95th=[ 236],
                    | 99.99th=[ 236]
                    bw ( KiB/s): min=98107, max=163840, per=100.00%, avg=134881.97, stdev=18361.55, samples=59
                    iops : min= 5, max= 10, avg= 7.93, stdev= 1.32, samples=59
                    lat (msec) : 100=15.79%, 250=84.21%
                    cpu : usr=0.01%, sys=1.48%, ctx=3747, majf=0, minf=4108
                    IO depths : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
                    submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
                    complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
                    issued rwts: total=247,0,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0
                    latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=1
                    
                    Run status group 0 (all jobs):
                    READ: bw=132MiB/s (138MB/s), 132MiB/s-132MiB/s (138MB/s-138MB/s), io=3952MiB (4144MB), run=30009-30009msec
                    
                    Disk stats (read/write):
                    sde: ios=3936/0, merge=0/0, ticks=58018/0, in_queue=58018, util=99.78%

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X