From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 18 17:28:19 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9048106566B; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:28:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kmacybsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pv0-f182.google.com (mail-pv0-f182.google.com [74.125.83.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 908168FC15; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:28:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pvg11 with SMTP id 11so2991994pvg.13 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:28:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ta5ZWj0Xjeh8Zn7Wx+HAy5idXNFnE7XoQQGsZTWVnMw=; b=RZcPv+7KFVSBChKizh/wCREvCHpZZlScrcfEs/FdKX7RoposcQkPX6fF4cLTz+B2j2 gRuJwoVkopx5sQtbuPFT0rjXCuLHL2lp0HIIEX3CSJwnioLujSi698F6imotUj2Zjv3J s3WHRpbtR2+IOWGAifJBaF7nnb5IM20suoQFs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=YE1Szevdo7uq1byuauFfuZgqIgxgKJeD1Zi13kAhUpWIL52xwmWA/bZnB0VQux5zIj Y2lgF9eqjz60e0dUXhZdx1Nc6vADPWV+KT1FmkeB6yIKDLMGB4OA8nuyKVYOz0UKGV0v KJZRpEo3S5QQ49k9mCyawd+2eiVVItqumY1W4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.54.102 with SMTP id i6mr3573976pbp.111.1303147699179; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:28:19 -0700 (PDT) Sender: kmacybsd@gmail.com Received: by 10.68.41.101 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:28:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:28:19 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: TemLwU1XAguliiCYQWL6Su3sKtY Message-ID: From: "K. Macy" To: Ingo Flaschberger Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Ingo Flaschberger Subject: Re: Routing enhancement - reduce routing table locking X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:28:19 -0000 400kpps is not a large enough measure to reach any conclusions. A system like that should be able to push at least 2.3Mpps with flowtable. I'm not saying that what you've done is not an improvement, but rather that you're hitting some other bottleneck. The output of pmc and LOCK_PROFILING might be insightful. Thanks, Kip On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Ingo Flaschberger wrote: > >> It would be great to see flowtable going back to its intended use. >> However, I would be surprised if this actually scales to Mpps. I don't >> have any high end hardware at the moment to test, what is the highest >> packet rate you've seen? i.e. simply generating small packets. > > Currently I have no tests available, but I have seen at a appliance with: > Intel Q35 > Quad Core cpu > Intel em desktop pcie cards > > ~ 200mbit 64byte packets - ~ 400kpps without packetloss. > > Without patch flowtable and fastforward had the same speed as flowtable, > fastfoward and standard forward. > > That means, with the patch the standard forward patch had the same speed = as > the fastforward path. > > It seems, I'm hitting some other speedlimits at my system, so there was n= o > real difference between flowtable, fastforward with and without the patch= . > > I would be great if someone could load a system with a full tables (400k > routes) and do some tests at 10gbe speed. > > Kind regards, > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Ingo Flaschberger > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >