Neue Hardware und schlechter Latency Test

More
3 years 3 months ago #276621 by WKS-3D
Everything is disabled in the BIOS, no energy management, no Hyper Threading.
The temperatures are good, but there is still a lot of room for improvement.
There are always only peaks in an interval of about 1 minute that I see when I reset the latency test.
I still have an idea what I can try.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 3 months ago #276622 by WKS-3D
My idea was to pull out the USB to LAN adapter and then run the test again. At first it looked good, but after 15 minutes the value jumped up again, too high.

I have to wait for the new hardware.

No idea what else I can do. I don't feel like it anymore either.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 2 months ago #276903 by WKS-3D
So, new hardware arrived and I reinstalled everything.
Here are the current latency values: (During the test, YouTube videos were playing and I was surfing the net.)
 

Attachment not found



and the PING results:
Code:
PING 10.10.10.10 (10.10.10.10) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.277 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.282 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.279 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.260 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.282 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.282 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=0.278 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=0.288 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=0.279 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=0.284 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=0.282 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=0.283 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=0.279 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=0.279 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=0.285 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=0.278 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=21 ttl=64 time=0.279 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=22 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=23 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=24 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=25 ttl=64 time=0.277 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=26 ttl=64 time=0.278 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=27 ttl=64 time=0.277 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=28 ttl=64 time=0.276 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=29 ttl=64 time=0.282 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=30 ttl=64 time=0.275 ms 64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=31 ttl=64 time=0.303 ms ^C --- 10.10.10.10 ping statistics --- 31 packets transmitted, 31 received, 0% packet loss, time 30678ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.260/0.280/0.303/0.006 ms
[/code]


Is this ok or can it be better?
I have worked through the instructions.
 

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 2 months ago #276910 by PCW
If the PC has a Intel MAC, you should disable IRQ coalescing
as described in the hm2_eth manual page

(and verify that its off with ethtool -c eno1)

replace eno1 with your ethernet device name if its different

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 2 months ago #276912 by tommylight
It looks fine.
Did you test without isolcpu ? I really hate knee-capping hardware without a really good reason, so i never used it.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 2 months ago #276914 by WKS-3D

If the PC has a Intel MAC, you should disable IRQ coalescing
as described in the hm2_eth manual page

(and verify that its off with ethtool -c eno1)

replace eno1 with your ethernet device name if its different


Is that what you mean?
Code:
Coalesce parameters for enp4s0: Adaptive RX: n/a  TX: n/a stats-block-usecs: n/a sample-interval: n/a pkt-rate-low: n/a pkt-rate-high: n/a rx-usecs: 0 rx-frames: n/a rx-usecs-irq: n/a rx-frames-irq: n/a tx-usecs: n/a tx-frames: n/a tx-usecs-irq: n/a tx-frames-irq: n/a rx-usecs-low: n/a rx-frame-low: n/a tx-usecs-low: n/a tx-frame-low: n/a rx-usecs-high: n/a rx-frame-high: n/a tx-usecs-high: n/a tx-frame-high: n/a CQE mode RX: n/a  TX: n/a

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 2 months ago #276915 by WKS-3D

It looks fine.
Did you test without isolcpu ? I really hate knee-capping hardware without a really good reason, so i never used it.
 
No I have not. Should I do that?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 2 months ago #276916 by PCW
OK so not Intel Ethernet hardware

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 2 months ago #276917 by WKS-3D

OK so not Intel Ethernet hardware

Yes, the network card where the mesa card is attached is an Intel card. The onboard one for the home network is a Realtek one.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 2 months ago #276918 by WKS-3D

OK so not Intel Ethernet hardware
 
driver: e1000e
version: 6.1.0-10-rt-amd64
firmware-version: 1.8-0
expansion-rom-version:
bus-info: 0000:04:00.0
supports-statistics: yes
supports-test: yes
supports-eeprom-access: yes
supports-register-dump: yes
supports-priv-flags: yes

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.679 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum