Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:58:04 -0500 From: Jim Thompson <jim@netgate.com> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Olivier Cochard-Labb? <olivier@cochard.me>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Erich Weiler <weiler@soe.ucsc.edu> Subject: Re: pf performance? Message-ID: <D19FA79A-5976-4E1D-A977-11747A672CA9@netgate.com> In-Reply-To: <20130427055349.GW76816@glebius.int.ru> References: <5176E5C1.9090601@soe.ucsc.edu> <20130426134224.GV76816@FreeBSD.org> <CA%2Bq%2BTcru%2BYRc5JAumHBtWUu8C-WOFiAC3AckMmYthmZK9mT=MQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130427055349.GW76816@glebius.int.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 27, 2013, at 12:53 AM, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > Unfortunately, as you see, most people avoid running head, waiting at leas= t for 10.0-RELEASE, or even for pfSense catching up on FreeBSD 10. So probab= ly this change won't be tested soon, and thus won't happen soon, Gleb,=20 As a minor part of the pfSense team, I believe you are mistaken.=20 I'm out of the office right now, but when I return, I'd already planned to d= uplicate the test in a test harness with several multi-core boxes acting as s= ource & sink, and the DUT to include several popular platforms for pfSense r= unning a set of software including running same across -HEAD, 9-STABLE, and 8= .3, both with the pfSense patches (as pfSense), and without.=20 I doubt I'll get this done prior to BSDcan, but I'll get it done, if only fo= r internal reasons. =20 Jim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D19FA79A-5976-4E1D-A977-11747A672CA9>