Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 21:34:41 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, julian@elischer.org Subject: Re: Netgraph performance Message-ID: <2656.1007066081@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:14:48 PST." <200111292014.fATKEmI70068@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200111292014.fATKEmI70068@vashon.polstra.com>, John Polstra writes: >In article <Pine.BSF.4.21.0111291012500.5212-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>, >Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> wrote: >> Netgraph is a prototyping tool, which has enough performance to be >> useful in non-performance-critical applications. (such as all sync >> interfaces). It is not designed for gigabit interfaces etc. > >You are selling Netgraph way too short. I've been using it >intensively with gigabit interfaces, and it performs very, very well. >For my application (which involves generating and responding to a >whole bunch of network traffic) it has yielded a good 4-5 times better >performance than any other alternative I've found. I have to agree here. Netgraph has some shortcomings, but performance is not one of them. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2656.1007066081>