From owner-freebsd-net  Fri Feb  2  6:31:43 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from starfruit.itojun.org (ny-ppp022.iij-us.net [216.98.99.22])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A1837B4EC
	for <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri,  2 Feb 2001 06:31:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from itojun.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by starfruit.itojun.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 61C0F7E2A; Fri,  2 Feb 2001 23:31:09 +0900 (JST)
To: Yu-Shun Wang <yushunwa@isi.edu>
Cc: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>,
	freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: yushunwa's message of Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:20:30 PST.
      <Pine.BSF.4.31.0102020009250.931-100000@amc.isi.edu> 
X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD  90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2
Subject: Re: IPComp question 
From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@iijlab.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 23:31:09 +0900
Message-Id: <20010202143109.61C0F7E2A@starfruit.itojun.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


>	What you pointed out below is true. But I am more
>	interested in the relative performance since the number
>	I measured were under exactly the same setup and traffic
>	condition. I am just curious why IPComp was _relatively_
>	(and signigicantly) slower than most of the encryption
>	algorithm. So I guess bandwidth is probably not the best
>	pointer since what I end up comparing was really the
>	implementations of different encryption/compression
>	algorithms which are CPU-bound in this case.

	did you try running these benchmarks on loopback interface?
	(i.e. sender and receiver on the same node)

itojun


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message