Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:22:39 +0100 From: Ruud Althuizen <ruud@stack.nl> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Firewall Options Message-ID: <20130306082239.GH42007@stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <201303060140.SAA04749@lariat.net> References: <CA%2BQLa9DgZWoajW0dTkNjOGsDsS=ggXefJK9v%2BtraZq4F99uUnQ@mail.gmail.com> <201303060140.SAA04749@lariat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] As stated elsewhere in this thread, there's an PF giant-lock. On Tue 05 Mar 2013 06:40 PM, Brett Glass wrote: > This brings up a question I hadn't thought to ask before. How SMP-friendly is > the current implementation of IPFW? I will be building some routers/firewalls > that will require high performance, and do not want to run into a > situation where > the firewall is single-threaded (or giant-locked) and becomes a bottleneck. > > --Brett Glass -- With kind regards, Ruud Althuizen [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlE2/M8ACgkQkqncCMFskRW3qQCfU8znG/CNG8FGQLgHkBTRQTec SHoAniHfhefl7dpPv3yun/OOOjwvo7Zt =xZqt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130306082239.GH42007>