Poor performance under high load

[Maximilian Pudelko]

Hi Jason,

>try the same test with 0.0.20180620 and 0.0.20180625
The Ubuntu ppa only contains version 0.0.20180625 as far as I can see
(apt-cache madison wireguard), so I only measured this version.
It's a bit (+0.1 Mpps) faster across the board and does drop to zero
later (~2.5 Mpps load). See the graph for details:
https://github.com/pudelkoM/MoonWire/blob/master/benchmarks/wireguard/results/0.0.20180625/encrypt-64.pdf

>Care to share your benchmark scripts?
No problem, but I doubt that these are integrate-able into a build
pipeline because they depend on libmoon (Lua wrapper for DPDK),
require at least 10 Gbit NICs and some manual data collection.
https://github.com/pudelkoM/MoonWire/tree/master/benchmarks


FYI: I'm also working on a WireGuard prototype based on DPDK to see
the performance impact of different network stacks. A very early
version that just receives, encrypts and forwards packets reaches
around 1.4 Mpps _on a single core_, so pretty promising if that can be
scaled up. But that's very far away from done (no handshakes,
hardcoded keys, single session, ...). See the same repository for
source.


Max


2018-06-26 17:57 GMT+00:00 Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason at zx2c4.com>:
> Hi Max,
>
> Thanks for doing this test; that's super useful. What you're
> describing is definitely not expected behavior. Think you could try
> the same test with 0.0.20180620 and 0.0.20180625? In particular, I'm
> interested to know whether a performance _regression_ introduced in
> 0.0.20180620 actually results in the correct behavior.
>
> Meanwhile, we (CC'd) have been working on implementing a lockfree
> queue structure, but we haven't seen any configurations yet where this
> actually results in a performance improvement.
>
> Care to share your benchmark scripts? Sounds like this could be really
> useful for directing our optimizations.
>
> Jason