Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 21:00:17 -0400 From: Paul <paul@gtcomm.net> To: Bart Van Kerckhove <bart@it-ss.be> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Ingo Flaschberger <if@xip.at> Subject: Re: Freebsd IP Forwarding performance (question, and some info) [7-stable, current, em, smp] Message-ID: <48701921.7090107@gtcomm.net> In-Reply-To: <486FFF70.3090402@gtcomm.net> References: <4867420D.7090406@gtcomm.net> <ea7b9c170806302005n2a66f592h2127f87a0ba2c6d2@mail.gmail.com><20080701033117.GH83626@cdnetworks.co.kr><ea7b9c170806302050p2a3a5480t29923a4ac2d7c852@mail.gmail.com><4869ACFC.5020205@gtcomm.net> <4869B025.9080006@gtcomm.net><486A7E45.3030902@gtcomm.net> <486A8F24.5010000@gtcomm.net><486A9A0E.6060308@elischer.org> <486B41D5.3060609@gtcomm.net><alpine.LFD.1.10.0807021052041.557@filebunker.xip.at><486B4F11.6040906@gtcomm.net><alpine.LFD.1.10.0807021155280.557@filebunker.xip.at><486BC7F5.5070604@gtcomm.net><20080703160540.W6369@delplex.bde.org><486C7F93.7010308@gtcomm.net><20080703195521.O6973@delplex.bde.org><486D35A0.4000302@gtcomm.net><alpine.LFD.1.10.0807041106591.19613@filebunker.xip.at><486DF1A3.9000409@gtcomm.net><alpine.LFD.1.10.0807041303490.20760@filebunker.xip.at><486E65E6.3060301@gtcomm.net> <alpine.LFD.1.10.0807052356130.2145@filebunker.xip.at> <2d3001c8def1$f4309b90$020b000a@bartwrkstxp> <486FFF70.3090402@gtcomm.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
UP 32 bit test vs 64 bit: negligible difference in forwarding performance without polling slightly better polling performance but still errors at lower packet rates same massive hit with ipfw loaded Installing dragonfly in a bit.. If anyone has a really fast PPC type system or SUN or something i'd love to try it :) Something with a really big L1 cache :P Paul wrote: > ULE + PREEMPTION for non SMP > no major differences with SMP with ULE/4BSD and preemption ON/OFF > > 32 bit UP test coming up with new cpu > and I'm installing dragonfly sometime this weekend :] > UP: 1mpps in one direction with no firewall/no routing table is not > too bad, but 1mpps both directions is the goal here > 700kpps with full bgp table in one direction is not too bad > Ipfw needs a lot of work, barely gets 500kpps with no routing table > with a few ipfw rules loaded.. that's horrible > Linux barely takes a hit when you start loading iptables rules , but > then again linux has a HUGE problem with routing > random packet sources/ports .. grr > My problem Is I need some box to do fast routing and some to do > firewall.. :/ > I'll have 32 bit 7-stable UP test with ipfw/routing table and then > move on to dragonfly. > I'll post the dragonfly results here as well as sign up for their > mailing list. > > > Bart Van Kerckhove wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Paul / Ingo, >> >>>> I tried all of this :/ still, 256/512 descriptors seem to work the >>>> best. Happy to let you log into the machine and fiddle around if you >>>> want :) >> I've been watching this thread closely, since I'm in a very similair >> situation. >> A few questions/remarks: >> >> Does ULE provide better performance than 4BSD for forwarding? >> Did you try freebsd4 as well? This thread had a report about that quite >> opposite to my own experiences, -4 seemed to be a lot faster at >> forwarding >> than anything else I 've tried so far. >> Obviously the thing I'm interested in is IMIX - and 64byte packets. >> Does anyone have any benchmarks for DragonFly? I asked around on IRC, >> but >> that nor google turned up any useful results. >> >> <snip> >>> I don't think you will be able to route 64byte packets at 1gbit >>> wirespeed (2Mpps) with a current x86 platform. >>> >> Are there actual hardware related reasons this should not be >> possible, or >> is this purely lack of dedicated work towards this goal? >> >> <snip> >> >>> Theres a "sun" used at quagga dev as bgp-route-server. >>> http://quagga.net/route-server.php >>> (but they don't answered my question regarding fw-performance). >>> >> >> >> the Quagga guys are running a sun T1000 (niagara 1) route server - I >> happen >> to have the machine in my racks, >> please let me know if you want to run some tests on it, I'm sure they >> won't >> mind ;-) >> It should also make a great testbed for SMP performance testing imho >> (and >> they're pretty cheap these days) >> Also, feel free to use me as a relay for your questions, they're not >> always >> very reachable. >> <snap> >> >> >>> Perhaps you have some better luck at some different hardware systems >>> (ppc, mips, ..?) or use freebsd only for routing-table-updates and >>> special network-cards (netfpga) for real routing. >>> >> The netfpga site seems more or less dead - is this project still alive? >> It does look like a very interesting idea, even though it's currently >> quite >> linux-centric (and according to docs doesn't have VLAN nor ip6 >> support, the >> former being quite a dealbreaker) >> >> Paul: I'm looking forward to the C2D 32bit benchmarks (maybe throw in a >> freebsd4 and/or dragonfly bench if you can..) - appreciate the lots of >> information you are providing us :) >> >> Met vriendelijke groet / With kind regards, >> >> Bart Van Kerckhove >> http://friet.net/pgp.txt >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> iQA/AwUBSG/tMgoIFchBM0BKEQKUSQCcCJqsw2wtUX7HQi050HEDYX3WPuMAnjmi >> eca31f7WQ/oXq9tJ8TEDN3CA >> =YGYq >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48701921.7090107>