From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Apr 26 16:22:44 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E38186A2;
 Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:22:44 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from cochard@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-vc0-f171.google.com (mail-vc0-f171.google.com
 [209.85.220.171])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 970A7113E;
 Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:22:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id ha12so1391716vcb.30
 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=x-received:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date
 :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=EDdYEM31WwHrwYrJ/omflnJeMfbbijlhS0LQLD8y8oM=;
 b=OsVPtL+VvHlU3rm88USaNydMtV3T0l01lTgq8GlHK7Z0RJ8TO6eiQXE8x3t4ye4Pua
 QEra2+4yici8j3gybyQtkkUMHdu/hupJsBVWk5je2eFn6U/xItELDjkeq5KP3inQlnXX
 mtlvHZGahNaJoNXvXAxBEN8mfRIiQLSaqfUY696YuMwmZQG9KcyIUFSpA3dGNIr+SS02
 dmM4Vb2mS8l+Z5KItOi0HEMRzioz/PxxPATWkpYtXMV8LL6MCBBYuNC/4HkAqPQGO/E3
 2y6swRCTszjx7D5C5mU96rZa6Qzyoma1GUXwxCmGLEJSOZZpI5f91r9vP+lWJ8v7AtF0
 byIw==
X-Received: by 10.52.100.5 with SMTP id eu5mr24760797vdb.66.1366993358627;
 Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: cochard@gmail.com
Received: by 10.59.9.103 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130426134224.GV76816@FreeBSD.org>
References: <5176E5C1.9090601@soe.ucsc.edu>
 <20130426134224.GV76816@FreeBSD.org>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cochard=2DLabb=E9?= <olivier@cochard.me>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:22:18 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1avJEO2F1a6NeuG0u6g-ZZiYHbU
Message-ID: <CA+q+Tcru+YRc5JAumHBtWUu8C-WOFiAC3AckMmYthmZK9mT=MQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pf performance?
To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>,
 Erich Weiler <weiler@soe.ucsc.edu>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:22:45 -0000

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> In FreeBSD 10 pf is no longer under single lock. On your hardware,
> I'd expect a measurable performance gain if you migrate to 10.

Compairing 9.1 and current (249908) on my new test-server (HP ProLiant
DL320 G5, dual-core Xeon 3050, dual Intel NIC).
Like usual: one unidirectional flow of small packets, values in
packet-per-seconds:

x 9.1
+ current
    N           Min           Max        Median           Avg        Stddev
x   5        379991        381508        381229      380892.6     667.69926
+   5        332833        335502        334726      334223.2     1142.8266
Difference at 95.0% confidence
        -46669.4 +/- 1364.98
        -12.2526% +/- 0.358363%
        (Student's t, pooled s = 935.915)

Regards,

Olivier