Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>