From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 11 14:55:43 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7157A16A420 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:55:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from mail.localelinks.com (web.localelinks.com [64.39.75.54]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D7BD43D55 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:55:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from draco.over-yonder.net (adsl-072-148-013-213.sip.jan.bellsouth.net [72.148.13.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.localelinks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC81AAD; Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:55:35 -0600 (CST) Received: by draco.over-yonder.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id CC34861C21; Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:55:34 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:55:34 -0600 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" To: Danial Thom Message-ID: <20060111145534.GI98918@over-yonder.net> References: <20060111142106.GH98918@over-yonder.net> <20060111144137.33128.qmail@web33310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060111144137.33128.qmail@web33310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Editor: vi X-OS: FreeBSD User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11-fullermd.2 Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org, ann kok Subject: Re: freebsd router X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:55:43 -0000 On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 06:41:37AM -0800 I heard the voice of Danial Thom, and lo! it spake thus: > > No, that's wrong. Firstly, you CAN do things in parallel, but when > you chop up the "tasks" in routing you don't gain anything, in fact > you lose, because it is best done as a single task. No, because you can route MULTIPLE PACKETS AT ONE TIME. Only the most trivial and uninteresting routing tasks move packets one at a time from one interface to another. Why should my packet coming in em1 and going out em3 have to wait until you're done with your packet coming in em0 and going out em2? MP is a distinct advantage. > I can promise you that 7.0 is far from "probably" anything. They are > a long way off. Maybe come up with some real benchmarks (like the > one I suggested in my other post) so you won't be bamboozled by the > hype so easily. Ooh, darn! All that hype bamboozled its way sideways into my tear ducts, and now I can't see straight! Or maybe it's just 'cuz I actually read -net and -cvs... This work has been shown to increase fast-forwarding from ~570 kpps to ~750 kpps (note that the same NIC hardware seems unable to transmit more than 800 kpps, so this increase appears to be limited almost solely by the hardware). Gains have been shown in other workloads, ranging from better performance to elimination of over-saturation livelocks. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/dev/em/if_em.c#rev1.98 Perhaps you should spend a little less time thinking up ways to flame people, and a little more time considering that just maybe FreeBSD is developed by marginally competent people who are interested in and capable of making progress. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.