From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Nov 29 12:36:22 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10BFB37B405 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:36:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fATKYf902658; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 21:34:46 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: John Polstra Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, julian@elischer.org Subject: Re: Netgraph performance In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:14:48 PST." <200111292014.fATKEmI70068@vashon.polstra.com> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 21:34:41 +0100 Message-ID: <2656.1007066081@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200111292014.fATKEmI70068@vashon.polstra.com>, John Polstra writes: >In article , >Julian Elischer 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