From owner-freebsd-bugs Tue Feb 5 21:40: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D856D37B41F for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:40:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g165e2M24710; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:40:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:40:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200202060540.g165e2M24710@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Bill Fumerola Subject: Re: kern/34639: IPFW skipto works too slow Reply-To: Bill Fumerola Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR kern/34639; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Bill Fumerola To: wawa@yandex-team.ru Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/34639: IPFW skipto works too slow Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:31:03 -0800 On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 05:53:19PM +0300, wawa@yandex-team.ru wrote: > >Description: > The original implementation of skipto rule use brute-force to find the appropriate rule. > The suggested implementation use indexed access. the ipfw code caches the skipto rule the first time it gets used. i don't think cacheing it in a different spot really helps anything. are you actually seeing performance problems? can you actually prove that ipfw is faster with this change? -- - bill fumerola / fumerola@yahoo-inc.com / billf@FreeBSD.org / billf@mu.org - my anger management counselor can beat up your self-affirmation therapist To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message