From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 2 07:11:30 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF12110656A4 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 07:11:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F6E48FC0C for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 07:11:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (home-nat.elischer.org [67.100.89.137]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p127BOV0053263 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 1 Feb 2011 23:11:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <4D49039F.8080804@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:11:27 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eugene Grosbein References: <4D48F568.6020502@rdtc.ru> In-Reply-To: <4D48F568.6020502@rdtc.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Current state of FreeBSD routing X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 07:11:30 -0000 On 2/1/11 10:10 PM, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > On 02.02.2011 05:11, Markus Oestreicher wrote: > >> 2) Fastforwarding vs multiple netisr: >> In the past (6.x) using fastforwarding=1 was the best option for dedicated routers. >> I found "multiple netisr" added to 8.0. Can that help with routing on multiple cores? > Yes, it allows more even distribution of input traffic processing over cores. > >> Any experience from using it in production? > It helps greatly but I was forced to disable it for mpd-based router > where there are many dynamically born/destroyed network interfaces. > > I suspect it increases possibility of kernel panic in such configuration > due to famous 'dangling pointer' problem: an interface ngXXX got destroyed > while packets received from it reside in netisr queues. Then kernel might > panic while processing these packets if needs to check incoming interface, > f.e. due to ipfw antispoofing rules. workaround for that may be to delay ng interface destruction by 2 seconds or something. I'll think about it.. >> 3) lagg: >> I found lagg(4) mostly mentioned on home user setups. >> Any experience with using lagg in high-pps environments? (>100k pps) > Works fine for me. > >> Will lagg play nicely together with multiple netisr routing or fastforwarding? >> How much overhead will it add versus a single connection? > Unnoticed. > > Eugene Grosbein > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >