From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Nov 20 22:49:23 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77435EDD
 for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:49:23 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from bright@mu.org)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551DF8FC08
 for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:49:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from Alfreds-MacBook-Pro-5.local
 (c-67-180-208-218.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.180.208.218])
 by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6B8C1A3C53;
 Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:49:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50AC08EC.8070107@mu.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:49:16 -0800
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jim Thompson <jim@netgate.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD boxes as a 'router'...
References: <1353448328.76219.YahooMailClassic@web121602.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
 <E1F4816E-676C-4630-9FA1-817F737D007D@netgate.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1F4816E-676C-4630-9FA1-817F737D007D@netgate.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com>, khatfield@socllc.net,
 freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:49:23 -0000

On 11/20/12 2:42 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Anyone who even mentions polling should be discounted altogether. Polling
>> had value when you couldn't control the interrupt delays; but interrupt
>> moderation allows you to pace the interrupts any way you like without
>> the inefficiencies of polling.
> You're entitled to your opinion, but experimental results have tended to show yours incorrect.
>
> Jim
Agree with Jim.  If you want pure packet performance you burn a core to 
run a polling loop.

-Alfred