Mix 10G 2.5G, slow speed, high Retr

Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.

dag

Member
Apr 23, 2020
27
41
13
Let us know what you find out, including brand/model, esp. since the AQS107 is next to impossible to find at this point.

Some user on Reddit reported some success with hifiber, but he didn’t perform a full blown iperf test, I’ll try to get one on Amazon and will report (I have a feeling I’m going to receive yet another 88x3310-based module though, crossing fingers).
 

spektykles

New Member
Apr 2, 2023
13
8
3
Let us know what you find out, including brand/model, esp. since the AQS107 is next to impossible to find at this point.

Some user on Reddit reported some success with hifiber, but he didn’t perform a full blown iperf test, I’ll try to get one on Amazon and will report (I have a feeling I’m going to receive yet another 88x3310-based module though, crossing fingers).
I found the one using AQR113C. Direct from OEM. The rest are just rebrands from this. Unfortunately I dont have enough equipment on hand (no 10G NIC) to test the whole iperf range. It only available in China, no one outside selling it. Well cant compete with your customers, i guess...
 
  • Like
Reactions: mach3.2

spektykles

New Member
Apr 2, 2023
13
8
3
Also should I avoid switches that using those faulty Marvell chip? A lot of them using it, very rare used the Aquantia chip.
 

dag

Member
Apr 23, 2020
27
41
13
Well, I'll be damned. I just got the HiFiber one, tested it, and lo and behold, here is what I get:

*** 2.5G both ways *simultaneously*
* RJ45-> Switch
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 16.3 GBytes 2.34 Gbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 16.3 GBytes 2.34 Gbits/sec receiver
* Switch -> RJ45
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 16.4 GBytes 2.35 Gbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 16.4 GBytes 2.35 Gbits/sec receiver

*** 5G both ways *simultaneously*
* RJ45-> Switch
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 32.8 GBytes 4.70 Gbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 32.8 GBytes 4.70 Gbits/sec receiver
* Switch -> RJ45
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 32.8 GBytes 4.70 Gbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 32.8 GBytes 4.70 Gbits/sec receiver

1G and 10G also work as expected, but that's the boring part. Interestingly, my Aruba switch took it without protesting, while the AQS107 simply never worked on it.

It's clearly not a 88x3310, the results are just way too good. And if it's the AQC113C, it does indeed support pause frames:

InterfaceReceived Packets
w/o Error
Received Packets
with Error
Broadcast
Received Packets
Transmitted
Packets
CollisionsTransmitted
Pause Frames
Received
Pause Frames
1/156675080821386609661900118399011

InterfaceReceived Packets
w/o Error
Received Packets
with Error
Broadcast
Received Packets
Transmitted
Packets
CollisionsTransmitted
Pause Frames
Received
Pause Frames
1/166082426030666678010130244950

Looks like we have a winner here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mach3.2 and Stephan

spektykles

New Member
Apr 2, 2023
13
8
3
Well, I'll be damned. I just got the HiFiber one, tested it, and lo and behold, here is what I get:

*** 2.5G both ways *simultaneously*
* RJ45-> Switch
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 16.3 GBytes 2.34 Gbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 16.3 GBytes 2.34 Gbits/sec receiver
* Switch -> RJ45
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 16.4 GBytes 2.35 Gbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 16.4 GBytes 2.35 Gbits/sec receiver

*** 5G both ways *simultaneously*
* RJ45-> Switch
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 32.8 GBytes 4.70 Gbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 32.8 GBytes 4.70 Gbits/sec receiver
* Switch -> RJ45
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 32.8 GBytes 4.70 Gbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 32.8 GBytes 4.70 Gbits/sec receiver

1G and 10G also work as expected, but that's the boring part. Interestingly, my Aruba switch took it without protesting, while the AQS107 simply never worked on it.

It's clearly not a 88x3310, the results are just way too good. And if it's the AQC113C, it does indeed support pause frames:

InterfaceReceived Packets
w/o Error
Received Packets
with Error
Broadcast
Received Packets
Transmitted
Packets
CollisionsTransmitted
Pause Frames
Received
Pause Frames
1/156675080821386609661900118399011

InterfaceReceived Packets
w/o Error
Received Packets
with Error
Broadcast
Received Packets
Transmitted
Packets
CollisionsTransmitted
Pause Frames
Received
Pause Frames
1/166082426030666678010130244950

Looks like we have a winner here.
A teardown is expected from you:p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stephan

dag

Member
Apr 23, 2020
27
41
13
Yeah I suspect they're the same company, and spektykles is correct, they all seem to be made by the same OEM anyway. You may or may not get an ASF-10G2-T when you buy the ASF-10G-T, seems to be hit or miss, you don't really have an option as far as I can tell. I don't think they really understand what they're selling to be honest, all they do is slap a sticker on something built by someone else.
 

mach3.2

Active Member
Feb 7, 2022
128
84
28
I found the one using AQR113C. Direct from OEM. The rest are just rebrands from this. Unfortunately I dont have enough equipment on hand (no 10G NIC) to test the whole iperf range. It only available in China, no one outside selling it. Well cant compete with your customers, i guess...
Found these on Taobao, they are almost half price as compared to 10GbE SFP+ transceivers on aliexpress/amazon. Claims to have DDM too, which is lacking on most other transceivers.


 

dag

Member
Apr 23, 2020
27
41
13
I did a bit more research and found the original datasheet for the AQR113, circa 2018, before Marvell acquired Aquantia. It clearly says the 113 supports the same rate adaptation mechanism as the 107 (via PAUSE frames).

I find it interesting Marvell chose to remove this kind of details in subsequent revisions, but I’m not surprised, Marvell didn’t buy Aquantia because of the tech per se, it was totally overlapping with what Marvell was already doing anyway, they really wanted their patents, and they really, really wanted to kill a threatening, fast growing and innovative competitor in the networking space.

I find it even more interesting Marvell still makes the chip, but these seem to be somewhat old stock, if you look at the pic of the chip I posted it shows “2145”, as in 45th week of 2021. I can’t easily find stock for the chip (not the SFP), even on the gray market, so it might be a short run until they run out.

AQR113 original datasheet
 
Last edited:

dag

Member
Apr 23, 2020
27
41
13
There's an "Aquantia" option which claims to be using AQR113C. The part number (GL-9630TQ PLUS) matches the image I initially quoted too.
Fair enough, I didn’t realize. If you give it a shot, please report back.
 

spektykles

New Member
Apr 2, 2023
13
8
3
I did a bit more research and found the original datasheet for the AQR113, circa 2018, before Marvell acquired Aquantia. It clearly says the 113 supports the same rate adaptation mechanism as the 107 (via PAUSE frames).

I find it interesting Marvell chose to remove this kind of details in subsequent revisions, but I’m not surprised, Marvell didn’t buy Aquantia because of the tech per se, it was totally overlapping with what Marvell was already doing anyway, they really wanted their patents, and they really, really wanted to kill a threatening, fast growing and innovative competitor in the networking space.

I find it even more interesting Marvell still makes the chip, but these seem to be somewhat old stock, if you look at the pic of the chip I posted it shows “2145”, as in 45th week of 2021. I can’t easily find stock for the chip (not the SFP), even on the gray market, so it might be a short run until they run out.

AQR113 original datasheet
Thanks for the datasheet you dugged out somewhere. Very useful :cool:
Your module is using an older revision of the chip (B0). There is B1 now, I dont know what changed.
Marvell still making these right now, no worry about running out. Shame that Aquantia didnt last longer, we could really have something awesome by now.
 

spektykles

New Member
Apr 2, 2023
13
8
3
The fact that Aquantia so ahead of the game they using 14nm for the chip, while 88X3310 and Broadcom still stuck at ancient 28nm :mad:
1680579229055.png
 

spektykles

New Member
Apr 2, 2023
13
8
3
Also should I avoid switches that using those faulty Marvell chip? A lot of them using it, very rare used the Aquantia chip.
Answered my own question. Aquantia chip in switches are available but very rare (pic are AQR813 from Zyxel switch). Same specs as AQR113, Aquantia designed the same "core" then just multiplied it based on how many ports needed.
Screenshot 2023-04-05 031548.png
 

gabberpocky

New Member
Apr 13, 2023
1
0
1
A question - are you guys able to reproduce this issue by overloading the affected port with traffic from multiple gigabit hosts, rather than a single 10G host?

I only have a single 10G transceiver at this point, which appears to be working exactly as expected when connected to a 2.5G i225. My switch (Engenius) doesn't support 2.5G so views it as a 10G link, while the transceiver negotiates 2.5G with the NIC. I'm trying to make a decision between adding another one or adding a 2.5G switch, and I don't want to add more transceivers if I'm going to start experiencing issues once both ends of the link are above gigabit.

I've tried to reproduce the issue described in this thread by flooding the 2.5G server with simultaneous traffic from 3 to 4 gigabit hosts but I'm not able to. iperf in both directions will max out at around 2.35Gbps when the totals are summed. Plenty of retransmits start occurring once the third and fourth hosts join and the link becomes saturated but I never see the kind of speed losses you guys are posting, and retransmits are normal on any saturated link.

Have I got lucky with my particular combination of switch/SFP+ module or is it just not possible to reproduce the issue without a 10G host in the mix?