--_000_DB6P190MB0280AA323133DF5B38214555C88A0DB6P190MB0280EURP_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is by far more complex. A good NIC will have an offload engine (LSO - =
Large Segment Offload) and, if so, the NIC driver will report a MTU of 64K =
to the IP stack. The IP stack will then send data to the NIC as if the MTU =
were 64K and the NIC will fragment it to the size of the "declared" MTU on =
the interface so PMTUD will not be efficient in such scenario. If all this =
takes place in the server, then you get no problem. But if a standard route=
r is configured to support 9K jumbo frame in one interface (i.e.: LAN conne=
ction) and 1500 in another (i.e.: WAN connection) then the router will be r=
esponsible for the fragmentation. However, most of the routers out there ar=
e not able to deal with this in high traffic demands.
Splitting the very intensive east/west traffic like disk copies, VM moves, =
etc. from the "service" traffic will not only prevent contention but also f=
ix this problem with MTU.
Moacir
________________________________
From: Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 7:35 AM
To: Moacir Ferreira
Cc: users(a)ovirt.org
Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Users Digest, Vol 71, Issue 37
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Moacir Ferreira <moacirferreira(a)hotmail.co=
m<mailto:moacirferreira@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Fabrice,
If you choose to have jumbo frames all over, then when the traffic goes out=
side of your "jumbo frames" enabled network it will be necessary to be frag=
mented back again to the destination MTU. Most of the datacenters will prov=
ide services to the outside world where the MTU is 1500 bytes. In this case=
, you will slow down your performance because your router will be doing the=
fragmentation. So I would always use jumbo frames in the datacenter for ea=
st/west traffic and standard (1500 bytes) for north/south traffic.
I doubt this would happen with modern TCP/IP stacks, for TCP connections. I=
t'll adjust to the path most likely, using PMTUD. Of course, this does not =
always work (depends on HW en-route).
UDP packets might fail miserably too (dropped), depending on the HW en-rout=
e, but UDP traffic (and specifically large packets) are not that common the=
se days.
Nevertheless, I don't see a huge advantage in enabling this for north-south=
traffic, TBH, and the mysterious, random traffic drop issues it may cause =
is not worth it.
Y.
Moacir
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:50:36 +0200
From: Fabrice Bacchella <fabrice.bacchella@orange.fr<mailto:fabrice.bacchel=
la(a)orange.fr>>
To: FERNANDO FREDIANI <fernando.frediani@upx.com<mailto:fernando.frediani@u=
px.com>>
Cc: users@ovirt.org<mailto:users@ovirt.org>
Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Good practices
Message-ID: <4365E3F7-4C77-4FF5-8401-1CDA2F0029EE@orange.fr<mailto:4365E3F7=
-4C77-4FF5-8401-1CDA2F0029EE(a)orange.fr>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"windows-1252"
> Moacir: Yes! This is another reason to have separate networks for
north/=
south and east/west. In that way I can use the standard MTU on the 10Gb
NIC=
s and jumbo frames on the file/move 40Gb NICs.
Why not Jumbo frame every where ?