From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 22 13:28:14 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE48C16A407 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:28:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost2.sentex.ca (smarthost2.sentex.ca [205.211.164.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD3543D5F for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:27:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by smarthost2.sentex.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kAMDSDg4030806; Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:28:13 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from mdt-xp.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.13.6/8.13.3) with ESMTP id kAMDSBlL097897 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:28:11 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <200611221328.kAMDSBlL097897@lava.sentex.ca> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:28:14 -0500 To: Jeremie Le Hen From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <20061122130947.GM20405@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <4557CECD.2000609@samsco.org> <200611130158.kAD1wdKE040908@lava.sentex.ca> <4557EF13.9060305@samsco.org> <200611130454.kAD4sZwe041556@lava.sentex.ca> <4557FF7A.8020704@samsco.org> <200611132054.kADKsFvK045726@lava.sentex.ca> <4558E3DC.6080800@samsco.org> <200611200454.kAK4sdat083568@lava.sentex.ca> <7.1.0.9.0.20061120160757.14d4a728@sentex.net> <200611220247.kAM2l9JP095066@lava.sentex.ca> <20061122130947.GM20405@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em forwarding performance (was Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:28:14 -0000 At 08:09 AM 11/22/2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: >Hi Mike, > >Thank you for spending that much time for benchmarking, this is really >interesting. Hi, More to come, and if you can think of other tests let me know. Next is VLAN performance. >Though this is a little bit off topic, I'm quite puzzled by the fact >that having filtering rules on Linux or not doesn't change the result >much. NetFitler keeps track of *all* connections even if there are no >ruleset loaded -- you don't have to ask for it Not sure, but I would unload iptables from the kernel when testing. I will check again today as I want to go back and test the LINUX kernel in UP mode to see what difference it makes. >It would be interesting to know the real performance of Linux as a mere >router if we want a true comparision with FreeBSD performances. As just a router, they seem fairly close without any firewall rules. RELENG_4 seems to be the only clear leader in terms of raw pps, at least in these tests. I am still puzzled by the fact that ipfw does relatively poorly compared to RELENG_4. I also have some PCIe bge nics I will try and test. There are some patches that Bruce Evans posted and I would like to see how they perform. ---Mike