Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because
the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Hi Li, thanks for the reminder! We'll take a look.
Comment 3RHEL Program Management
2023-09-22 14:23:41 UTC
Issue migration from Bugzilla to Jira is in process at this time. This will be the last message in Jira copied from the Bugzilla bug.
Comment 4RHEL Program Management
2023-09-22 14:26:24 UTC
This BZ has been automatically migrated to the issues.redhat.com Red Hat Issue Tracker. All future work related to this report will be managed there.
Due to differences in account names between systems, some fields were not replicated. Be sure to add yourself to Jira issue's "Watchers" field to continue receiving updates and add others to the "Need Info From" field to continue requesting information.
To find the migrated issue, look in the "Links" section for a direct link to the new issue location. The issue key will have an icon of 2 footprints next to it, and begin with "RHEL-" followed by an integer. You can also find this issue by visiting https://issues.redhat.com/issues/?jql= and searching the "Bugzilla Bug" field for this BZ's number, e.g. a search like:
"Bugzilla Bug" = 1234567
In the event you have trouble locating or viewing this issue, you can file an issue by sending mail to rh-issues. You can also visit https://access.redhat.com/articles/7032570 for general account information.
Description of problem: TCP throughput between 2 Standard_DC96as_v5 CVMs is lower than advertised. This is reproduced at both Red Hat and Microsoft sides. Below is a test sample from NTTTCP. Connections=1 : throughput=2.99Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=1.65 cyclesPerByte_receiver=2.89 Avg_TCP_lat=479.864 pktsPerInterrupt=1.89 conCreatedTime=633 retransSegs=1214 Connections=2 : throughput=6.10Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=1.78 cyclesPerByte_receiver=2.89 Avg_TCP_lat=229.669 pktsPerInterrupt=1.88 conCreatedTime=675 retransSegs=1992 Connections=4 : throughput=11.15Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=1.48 cyclesPerByte_receiver=2.98 Avg_TCP_lat=6963.867 pktsPerInterrupt=2.42 conCreatedTime=1261 retransSegs=3889 Connections=8 : throughput=15.04Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=1.60 cyclesPerByte_receiver=2.74 Avg_TCP_lat=7720.227 pktsPerInterrupt=3.08 conCreatedTime=1036 retransSegs=9885 Connections=16 : throughput=16.80Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=1.81 cyclesPerByte_receiver=3.03 Avg_TCP_lat=7712.378 pktsPerInterrupt=2.43 conCreatedTime=1811 retransSegs=18803 Connections=32 : throughput=16.20Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=2.10 cyclesPerByte_receiver=3.70 Avg_TCP_lat=8525.040 pktsPerInterrupt=2.00 conCreatedTime=3122 retransSegs=57473 Connections=64 : throughput=16.05Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=2.93 cyclesPerByte_receiver=4.61 Avg_TCP_lat=8990.453 pktsPerInterrupt=2.33 conCreatedTime=14756 retransSegs=211787 Connections=128 : throughput=15.46Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=4.09 cyclesPerByte_receiver=6.06 Avg_TCP_lat=9951.902 pktsPerInterrupt=3.34 conCreatedTime=30995 retransSegs=558881 Connections=256 : throughput=14.36Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=5.69 cyclesPerByte_receiver=9.44 Avg_TCP_lat=11873.313 pktsPerInterrupt=5.48 conCreatedTime=51052 retransSegs=1118302 Connections=512 : throughput=12.84Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=6.92 cyclesPerByte_receiver=11.98 Avg_TCP_lat=17647.435 pktsPerInterrupt=7.60 conCreatedTime=58597 retransSegs=11032245 Connections=1024 : throughput=12.91Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=12.05 cyclesPerByte_receiver=12.39 Avg_TCP_lat=13498.971 pktsPerInterrupt=44.58 conCreatedTime=99941 retransSegs=2622917 Also notice that of Standard_DC64as_v5 is below advertised too: Connections=1 : throughput=2.96Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=1.82 cyclesPerByte_receiver=2.72 Avg_TCP_lat=257.609 pktsPerInterrupt=1.68 conCreatedTime=1188 retransSegs=1275 Connections=2 : throughput=5.64Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=1.52 cyclesPerByte_receiver=2.90 Avg_TCP_lat=262.646 pktsPerInterrupt=2.11 conCreatedTime=1240 retransSegs=2265 Connections=4 : throughput=7.95Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=1.26 cyclesPerByte_receiver=2.33 Avg_TCP_lat=7391.646 pktsPerInterrupt=2.28 conCreatedTime=1432 retransSegs=4785 Connections=8 : throughput=12.11Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=1.50 cyclesPerByte_receiver=2.89 Avg_TCP_lat=597.900 pktsPerInterrupt=2.21 conCreatedTime=1441 retransSegs=17272 Connections=16 : throughput=12.23Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=1.57 cyclesPerByte_receiver=3.45 Avg_TCP_lat=9136.253 pktsPerInterrupt=1.97 conCreatedTime=1957 retransSegs=30081 Connections=32 : throughput=15.70Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=1.85 cyclesPerByte_receiver=3.75 Avg_TCP_lat=9050.949 pktsPerInterrupt=2.01 conCreatedTime=3195 retransSegs=64960 Connections=64 : throughput=15.53Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=2.35 cyclesPerByte_receiver=4.61 Avg_TCP_lat=9142.252 pktsPerInterrupt=2.36 conCreatedTime=11085 retransSegs=202511 Connections=128 : throughput=14.88Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=3.24 cyclesPerByte_receiver=6.16 Avg_TCP_lat=10435.140 pktsPerInterrupt=3.27 conCreatedTime=25293 retransSegs=548462 Connections=256 : throughput=13.64Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=4.50 cyclesPerByte_receiver=9.63 Avg_TCP_lat=13677.645 pktsPerInterrupt=5.14 conCreatedTime=53623 retransSegs=1105525 Connections=512 : throughput=12.05Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=5.30 cyclesPerByte_receiver=11.59 Avg_TCP_lat=17504.668 pktsPerInterrupt=6.28 conCreatedTime=72665 retransSegs=13815629 Connections=1024 : throughput=10.09Gbps cyclesPerByte_sender=7.65 cyclesPerByte_receiver=18.13 Avg_TCP_lat=29683.466 pktsPerInterrupt=8.21 conCreatedTime=98030 retransSegs=16183693 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 5.14.0-160.el9.x86_64 How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: Create 2 Standard_DC96as_v5 CVMs on same subnet and use iperf3 or NTTTCP to test throughput between them. Actual results: Expected results: Standard_DC64as_v5 20000 Mbps Standard_DC96as_v5 30000 Mbps Additional info: Original thread - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124751