- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- nic performance
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 04:56 AM
03-14-2009 04:56 AM
I have an rp7410 with 2 partitions. 1st partition running 11.23, and the 2nd running 11.31. We have had an ongoing problem with the NIC perfomance on the 11.23 side. lanadmin -x 0 shows 1000, autoneg on. We can't seem to get more than 10MB/s out of it. The cable and the switch are all ok, as we have tested both on the 11.31 partition.
This has been an ongoing problem. We just commissioned this server after running into the same problem on an N4000 with a GB NIC installed. Couldn't get more than 10MB/s on that one either. I was thinking maybe something in the setup or config is off.
If you need any config files, or more info, please let me know.
thx
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 05:28 AM
03-14-2009 05:28 AM
Re: nic performance
What did you use to verify the speed and path?
- traceroute
- MTU size / Jumbo frames : netstat -in
ttcp - ftp.arl.mil/ftp/pubttcp
netperf - www.netperf.org
FTP? get a large incoming file to /dev/nul?
I assume that you used the same test on both partitions and thus ensured the source and sink are up to the task?
NFS? has its own set of parameters.. are they ok? And NFS got better with 11.31.
Find a recent version of David Olkers NFS tuning documents ? (recent HPTF proceedings 2002 flavor in
http://docs.hp.com/en/1435/NFSPerformanceTuninginHP-UX11.0and11iSystems.pdf )
Good luck!
Hein.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 05:35 AM
03-14-2009 05:35 AM
Re: nic performance
We are using netbackup to restore a DB to an attached SAN. The backup itself will take about 4 1/2 hours on average. The restore takes 20+ hours. Like I said, through the 11.31 partition, just using scp as a test, we're getting 40MB/sec, but using the same file to transfer via scp on the 11.23 side, 10MB/sec tops.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 05:36 AM
03-14-2009 05:36 AM
Re: nic performance
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 05:39 AM
03-14-2009 05:39 AM
Re: nic performance
Could you post the iocsan -fnClan?
I don't know if you have a spare nic port on both partitions, you could try to eliminate the switch. Just use a cross-over cable to connect both nics and setup a private network between the nics.
On other thought is the GigEther-01 (igelan) software.
http://h20392.www2.hp.com/portal/swdepot/displayProductInfo.do?productNumber=GigEther-01
Defects fixed in B.11.23.0809 release:
* QXCR1000591671: Support for 1000FD speed on IGELAN
Regards,
Robert-Jan
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 05:42 AM
03-14-2009 05:42 AM
Re: nic performance
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 05:54 AM
03-14-2009 05:54 AM
Re: nic performance
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 05:57 AM
03-14-2009 05:57 AM
Re: nic performance
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 06:23 AM
03-14-2009 06:23 AM
Re: nic performance
On both systems right?
Please consider Jumbo-frame at 9000 bytes.
>> We are using netbackup to restore a DB to an attached SAN. The backup itself will take about 4 1/2 hours on average. The restore takes 20+ hours. Like I said, through the 11.31 partition, just using scp as a test, we're getting 40MB/sec, but using the same file to transfer via scp on the 11.23 side, 10MB/sec tops.
Sorry to be a pest, but you did not explicitly indicate that the performance difference is also visible during netbackup?
OR is the backup from 11.31 and the restore to 11.23? Still for performance backup != restore.
I'm sure it does, and that is probably what prompted you to investigate, but still...
Maybe try one more tool other than scp, or establish the core performance with a foundation tool like ttcp?
There are a lot of tuneable to check, depending on the protocols used. Settings like tcp_sack_enable, and whether the driver supports 'trains' of packets:
# ndd â get /dev/ip ip_ill_status
look for 'train'
A most excellent paper describing it all, but maybe overwhelming is: http://docs.hp.com/en/11890/perf-whitepaper-tcpip-v10.pdf
Dig in!
Regards,
Hein.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 07:58 AM
03-14-2009 07:58 AM
Re: nic performance
Should I go ahead and change the MTU value to something else? Is this a dynamic change? I know it's a lanadmin setting...can you give me the command?
thx
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 08:21 AM
03-14-2009 08:21 AM
Re: nic performance
Cos all the tests I can see here will have taken disk access into account as well...
You need to isolate the problem so you can eliminate other variables. Start by testing the speed of the network only.
Get a copy of netperf installed on the 11.23 partition and wherever the Netbackup data is coming from and run a simple TCP_STREAM test between the 2. Netperf is easy to use and only takes 15-20 minutes to install and setup. Downloads and manual available here:
http://www.netperf.org
You will need a compiler to build it though...
HTH
Duncan
I am an HPE Employee

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 08:33 AM
03-14-2009 08:33 AM
Re: nic performance
or /dev/zero to sink or source lots of data for free.
The scp tests are a step, but just a step.
Of course in the end tests are just that, tests. And only the real mcCoy counts (backup/restore).
To that end I would suggest to Ron to reverse the application. Try a backup from dev, even though you might not 'need' that. See whether that takes more close to the 4 or to those 20 hours. And keep an eye on the system as to what it is doing during that time. idle? waiting for disk or network? what kind of disk IO rates are generated and do you believe those to be sustainable in the configuration.
And uh... any good reason NOT to go forwards to 11.31 on the other partition? In the plans? Accelerate those plans?
Hein.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 11:10 AM
03-14-2009 11:10 AM
Re: nic performance
GE-DRV B.11.23.0512 HP PCI Gigabit Ethernet Driver
IGELAN-DRV B.11.23.0712 HP PCI Gigabit Ethernet Driver
Could these 2 drivers be conflicting? What would be the result of me removing the GE-DRV?
It's a start, right?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 11:22 AM
03-14-2009 11:22 AM
Re: nic performance
http://docs.hp.com/en/supportmatrixEthernetver2.pdf/supportmatrixEthernetver2.pdf
The important thing in diagnosing these sorts of issues is to approach it in a systematic fashion. You think you have a network problem - you need to prove that by removing the other items from the equation and just testing the performance of the network. Try that with netperf or as Hein suggests by sneding data to /dev/null.
HTH
Duncan
I am an HPE Employee

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 11:28 AM
03-14-2009 11:28 AM
Re: nic performance
I, again, was looking around, and noticed that the hpigelanconf file has none of the variables set.
Perplexed yet? I am
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 11:34 AM
03-14-2009 11:34 AM
Re: nic performance
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 11:36 AM
03-14-2009 11:36 AM
Re: nic performance
so you created a file to transfer
so it wasn't just based on network performance - the file had to be read off disk.
Honestly spend the time to get netperf installed - it doesn't use files at all so you get "true" network performance only from tests with it...
HTH
Duncan
I am an HPE Employee

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2009 03:14 PM
03-14-2009 03:14 PM
Re: nic performance
Then connect the cables to the switch and perform the same test. It should be virtually identical to the crossover cable test. If not, check the switch's port settings. Then work down the chain to the other system. In a network, the maximum performance of the Gbit card will be the slowest link along the way. Also note that Jumbo frames (mtu=9000) must be supported through every hop to be effective.
Bill Hassell, sysadmin
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-15-2009 03:29 AM
03-15-2009 03:29 AM
Re: nic performance
dd if=/dev/zero | ssh frances "dd of=/dev/null"
This will eliminate the disk speeds in the process. But as it was suggested before, best to use netperf. ;)
Unix operates with beer.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-15-2009 03:43 AM
03-15-2009 03:43 AM
Re: nic performance
Unix operates with beer.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-15-2009 08:54 AM
03-15-2009 08:54 AM
Re: nic performance
Just to be sure the link is error free, can you post the output of
lanadmin -g mibstats_ext 0 (or which ever ppa is in use ) also can you check that the port at switch end is also set to 1000 auto negotiate.
Mike
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-15-2009 11:36 AM
03-15-2009 11:36 AM
Re: nic performance
thanks!!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-16-2009 09:18 AM
03-16-2009 09:18 AM
SolutionOn both systems:
*) download tar file
*) unpack tar file
*) cd to the directory created by tar
*) ./configure
*) make
*) on the system to receive data say src/netserver
*) on the system to send data say src/netperf -H
the -f M is to get netperf reporting in MegaBytes (mega == 1024 * 1024) per second rather than megabits (1000 * 1000) per second.
we can go from there.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-19-2009 03:35 AM
03-19-2009 03:35 AM