Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:30:15 -0800 (PST) From: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> To: Ingo Flaschberger <if@xip.at> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD boxes as a 'router'... Message-ID: <1353454215.20382.YahooMailClassic@web121601.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <50AC0C92.8080603@xip.at>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
--- On Tue, 11/20/12, Ingo Flaschberger <if@xip.at> wrote: > From: Ingo Flaschberger <if@xip.at> > Subject: Re: FreeBSD boxes as a 'router'... > To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org > Date: Tuesday, November 20, 2012, 6:04 PM > Am 20.11.2012 23:49, schrieb Alfred > Perlstein: > > 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: > >> > >> 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. > > At new systems, without polling I had better performance and > no live-locks, > at old systems (Intel 82541GI) polling prevent live-locks. > > Best test: > Loop a GigE Switch, inject a Packet and plug it into the > test-box. Yeah, thats a good real-world test. To me "performance" is not "burning a cpu" to get some extra pps. Performance is not dropping buckets of packets. Performance is using less cpu to do the same amount of work. Is a machine that benchmarks at 998Mb/s at 95% cpu really a "higher performance" system than one that does 970Mb/s and uses 50% of the cpu? The measure of performance is to manage an entire load without dropping any packets. If your machine goes into live-lock, then you need more machine. Hacking it so that it drops packets is hardly a solution. BChelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1353454215.20382.YahooMailClassic>