Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:49:16 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Jim Thompson <jim@netgate.com> Cc: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com>, khatfield@socllc.net, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD boxes as a 'router'... Message-ID: <50AC08EC.8070107@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <E1F4816E-676C-4630-9FA1-817F737D007D@netgate.com> References: <1353448328.76219.YahooMailClassic@web121602.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <E1F4816E-676C-4630-9FA1-817F737D007D@netgate.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50AC08EC.8070107>