Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 15 Jul 2000 15:31:03 +0900
From:      ARIGA Seiji <say@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
To:        freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc:        silby@silby.com, lconrad@Go2France.com, kris@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: IPsec Performance (Re: Merge of KAME code)
Message-ID:  <20000715153103V.say@decoy.sfc.keio.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007141800280.11600-100000@achilles.silby.com>
References:  <20000713022715E.say@decoy.sfc.keio.ac.jp> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007141800280.11600-100000@achilles.silby.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:02:40 -0500 (CDT),
Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> wrote,

: >   TCP STREAM TEST   UDP STREAM TEST
: >     NONE:   60Mbps    NONE:   94Mbps
: >     AH:     23Mbps    AH:     30Mbps
: >     ESP:    11Mbps    ESP:    11Mbps
: >     AH+ESP:  8Mbps    AH+ESP:  9Mbps
: Question.  Is the time spent in the IPSec layer accounted to the user
: processor, or just thrown in with kernel time?

I used netperf to measure the performance of IPsec.
So, I think it is accounted to the user processor.

// ARIGA Seiji


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000715153103V.say>