From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 28 15:57:01 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E849C80; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:57:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cochard@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vb0-x235.google.com (mail-vb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::235]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C11421ACD; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:57:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id i3so1655947vbh.40 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:57:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=rDO0tYAXh6pa1Wt7Z2xGQuFRbB2ryhJZX61qvZJP1J8=; b=wJH5TWUeUVfcg8eBWYdadYxZ2FAiR7yedDADvSeau6Nlqy/nSeHHGrCCL0n1zaiPen urtDd8VflTMpa5xy0fW/wHPZYZEuz3Fk0kCnFlMc6HzdG+9tlNRj4CXmcZf/tlffn6X7 8klHAktgjOtmYVbc8jSS5mEFFjHuyXh4xCll1UPuye1iTDX4UHZwaLCTY0BpaWzIJ1ge RbvcT5BiV0DzknrkIUPH98eFrM6OYI+Yhf+usdeoTwfKhywzb8g6Cgg5XLXArOFtm/ao tPfdYZlDCb2WjlbMZuhRCS7jaxzo/bEzpxiwqqF7QFimJld04RbbWoPMk+Yj7IqvnCZT ny1w== X-Received: by 10.220.65.1 with SMTP id g1mr32045942vci.63.1367164620234; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:57:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: cochard@gmail.com Received: by 10.59.9.103 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:56:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5178F72F.90008@freebsd.org> References: <5178F72F.90008@freebsd.org> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cochard=2DLabb=E9?= Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:56:39 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1aZvnKSNL-X2Uy4y6x3LNPkXQXU Message-ID: Subject: Re: forwarding/ipfw/pf evolution (in pps) on -current To: Andre Oppermann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" , Sami Halabi X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:57:01 -0000 On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > Again one has to be really careful drawing any firm conclusions from this > as it was measured on a Pentium4 and UP kernel (GENERIC would add WITNESS > and INVARIANT overhead as well). > > The Pentium4 is about the worst micro-architecture when it comes to locks > and easily regresses. At the same time modern Intel Core i[3-7] and AMD64 > may actually improve with these changes. Unless more recent micro-archs > have been shown to exhibit the same regression we can't claim this change > was bad (other than for Pentium4). OK, here are the results of the same bench on another server (HP ProLiant DL320 G5): - Dual Core: Intel Xeon CPU 3050 2.13GHz (2133.45-MHz K8-class CPU) - NIC changed to dual 82571EB Graph: http://gugus69.free.fr/freebsd/benchs/current2/current-pps.png gnuplot data: http://gugus69.free.fr/freebsd/benchs/current2/plot/ ministat data: http://gugus69.free.fr/freebsd/benchs/current2/ministat/ raw data: http://gugus69.free.fr/freebsd/benchs/current2/raw/ Notice the Glebius' explanation regarding a unique one-flow test and the new pf-smp behavior: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2013-April/035417.html Regards, Olivier