Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 13:54:01 +0400 From: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@FreeBSD.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10G forwarding performance @Intel Message-ID: <4FF412B9.3000406@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120704091241.GA99164@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> References: <4FF319A2.6070905@FreeBSD.org> <4FF361CA.4000506@FreeBSD.org> <20120703214419.GC92445@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <4FF36438.2030902@FreeBSD.org> <4FF3E2C4.7050701@FreeBSD.org> <4FF3FB14.8020006@FreeBSD.org> <4FF402D1.4000505@FreeBSD.org> <20120704091241.GA99164@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 04.07.2012 13:12, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > Alex, > i am sure you are aware that in FreeBSD we have netmap too Yes, I'm aware of that :) > which is probably a lot more usable than packetshader > (hw independent, included in the OS, also works on linux...) I'm actually not talking about usability and comparison here :). Thay have nice idea and nice performance graphs. And packetshader is actually _platform_ with fast packet delivery being one (and the only open) part of platform. Their graphs shows 40MPPS (27G/64byte) CPU-only IPv4 packet forwarding on "two four-core Intel Nehalem CPUs (2.66GHz)" which illustrates software routing possibilities quite clearly. > > cheers > luigi >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FF412B9.3000406>