Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 11:20:08 -0400 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: John Jasen <jjasen@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: state of packet forwarding in FreeBSD? Message-ID: <5f2a5097-2fe5-7a21-6446-6018b55f0a68@sentex.net> In-Reply-To: <CAACLuR17yRETErqsxbdhBPJrjQur0oMVOqvL5ZCkmjLCKkHLNA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAACLuR17yRETErqsxbdhBPJrjQur0oMVOqvL5ZCkmjLCKkHLNA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/14/2017 10:48 AM, John Jasen wrote: > Our goal was to test whether or not FreeBSD currently is viable, as the > operating system platform for high speed routers and firewalls, in the > 40 to 100 GbE range. > > In our investigations, we tested 10.3, 11.0/-STABLE, -CURRENT, and a USB > stick from BSDRP using the FreeBSD routing improvements project > enhancements (https://wiki.freebsd.org/ProjectsRoutingProposal). Hi John, I am interested in your findings / test setups. I have a couple of boxes in the field running r317611 (around April 30) and r316678 (April 4) and found that r316678 does a higher PPS with zero drops and r317611 does less work, but will get random overruns on dev.cxl.0.stats.rx_ovflow0 and dev.cxl.0.stats.rx_trunc0. Same hardware, same cxl cards, both running frr as the routing daemon. Whats odd is that the errors are not anywhere peak load. Sometimes in the middle of the night when traffic is much lower. The missed packets dont seem to correlate to load-- that I can see anyways based on utilization graphs. When you were doing your tests, did you measure peak as what the box could forward without dropping packets or dropping some ? ---Mike -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5f2a5097-2fe5-7a21-6446-6018b55f0a68>