From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 6 09:35:10 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B35C16A4D0 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:35:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from transport.cksoft.de (transport.cksoft.de [62.111.66.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A714143D2D for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:35:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from transport.cksoft.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by transport.cksoft.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C1A01FFDD8; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:35:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: by transport.cksoft.de (Postfix, from userid 66) id 9D20A1FFDD6; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:35:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.int.zabbadoz.net (Postfix, from userid 1060) id A9E731567C; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:32:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.int.zabbadoz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F24115672; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:32:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:32:06 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" X-X-Sender: bz@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net To: Scott Long In-Reply-To: <4135118A.5030807@samsco.org> Message-ID: References: <4134DF35.7070605@freebsd.org><4134E4B6.2030409@elischer.org> <4134FCAE.7374599A@freebsd.org> <4134FF74.4010105@freebsd.org> <4135051E.2070007@elischer.org> <4135118A.5030807@samsco.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS cksoft-s20020300-20031204bz on transport.cksoft.de cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: netgraph locking / performance [was: ... AOE] X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 09:35:10 -0000 On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Scott Long wrote: Hi, > My employer has done extensive profiling of packet delivery through > netgraph. While the locking of the netgraph framework is definitely > correct, it's not terribly efficient and leads to a good deal of > latency. We are looking at various proposals on how to address this. > This isn't a criticism of you or Netgraph, just a set 'real-life' > observations under very high load (bridging and packet inspection on > 4 GigE links simultaneously qualifies as high load =-) could please explain a bit more / give some numbers ? Or are there any published results ? What do you mean by 'packet inspection' ? And what hardware did you use to fill up 4GigE pipes ? -- Greetings Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT