From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Nov 30 23:56:14 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from whale.sunbay.crimea.ua (whale.sunbay.crimea.ua [212.110.138.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B123537B401 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:56:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from ru@localhost) by whale.sunbay.crimea.ua (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB17tJU88277; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:55:19 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from ru) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:55:19 +0200 From: Ruslan Ermilov To: sanjeev singh Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: natd limiting download speed? Message-ID: <20001201095519.A87903@sunbay.com> Mail-Followup-To: sanjeev singh , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20001115093938.A36400@sunbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from remraf@hobbiton.org on Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 01:01:23AM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 01:01:23AM -0600, sanjeev singh wrote: > hi Ruslan, > > I tried using ipfilter/ipnat in place of ipfw/natd and got much better > performance: ~40% idle cycles during a 4mbps netperf test (as opposed to > ~0% idle cycles with natd). Got similar results under a NAT'd download. > > So, for the record, (at least on 486s) ipfilter/ipnat appears to be almost > twice as fast as ipfw/natd. > The primary reason is that natd(8) is a userland solution (as opposed to the ipnat), and every packet gets copied between userland and the kernel address space twice. -- Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA, ru@sunbay.com Sunbay Software AG, ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message