Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:30:51 +0400 From: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@FreeBSD.org> To: Hooman Fazaeli <hoomanfazaeli@gmail.com> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10G forwarding performance @Intel Message-ID: <500514AB.2090701@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <500511A6.9010808@gmail.com> References: <4FF361CA.4000506@FreeBSD.org> <20120703214419.GC92445@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <4FF36438.2030902@FreeBSD.org> <4FF3E2C4.7050701@FreeBSD.org> <4FF3FB14.8020006@FreeBSD.org> <4FF402D1.4000505@FreeBSD.org> <20120704091241.GA99164@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <4FF412B9.3000406@FreeBSD.org> <20120704154856.GC3680@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <4FF59955.5090406@FreeBSD.org> <20120706061126.GA65432@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <500452A5.3070501@FreeBSD.org> <500511A6.9010808@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17.07.2012 11:17, Hooman Fazaeli wrote: > May be slightly off-topic, but do you have tested (or have plans to test ) > with bidirectional traffic? Situation with bi-directional traffic is better (not sure how much). I'm intentionally not testing this case to discover rough cases (like contested interface counters) faster. Here is statistics from one of the machines running in production * E5645 * Intel 82599 * HT turned on (so 16 out of 24 cores are used) * Modified Intel drivers * 8.3-S kernel with interface rlock patch * ipfw counters eliminated * global forwarding counters not eliminated (-another 100-200 kpps) * route locking eliminated (modified version of original patch in the first message) * 8 vlans * IPv4 traffic * 4-8 firewall rules to pass http://static.ipfw.ru/images/degas_pps.png http://static.ipfw.ru/images/degas_traffic.png http://static.ipfw.ru/images/degas_cpu.png -- WBR, Alexander
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?500514AB.2090701>