Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 14:08:48 +0100 From: Marko Zec <zec@fer.hr> To: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPFW In-Kernel NAT vs PF NAT Performance Message-ID: <20200319140848.4160644c@x23> In-Reply-To: <2ea463e1-a1ee-defe-b640-ad45f56a4949@FreeBSD.org> References: <fc638872b9bdf14c13e2d6c13e698d1e@neelc.org> <F154BCBA-4079-48CA-ACE9-F01FBCBD53D0@FreeBSD.org> <cb87cc92-59ff-119e-be43-41d51b94f7e9@FreeBSD.org> <55dbea1fe75777780be166756c7641e8@neelc.org> <2ea463e1-a1ee-defe-b640-ad45f56a4949@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 14:33:34 +0300 Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On 19.03.2020 7:14, Neel Chauhan wrote: > > > However, if you know, where in the code does libalias use only 4096 > > buckets? I want to know incase I want/have to switch back to IPFW. > 4096 is my mistake, it is 4001 and must be prime. It is here: > > sys/netinet/libalias/alias_local.h:69-70: > > #define LINK_TABLE_OUT_SIZE 4001 > #define LINK_TABLE_IN_SIZE 4001 Out of curiosity, why exactly _must_ the hash size be a prime here? Doing a quick fgrep -R powerof2 /sys/netinet | fgrep hash reveals that a completely different line of thought prevails there, and probably elsewhere as well? What gives? Marko
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200319140848.4160644c>