From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Jun 24 16:39:11 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id QAA29871
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 16:39:11 -0700
Received: from mail.htp.com (mail.htp.com [199.171.4.2])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA29862
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 16:39:09 -0700
Received: from et.htp.com (et.htp.com [199.171.4.228]) by mail.htp.com (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id TAA21743; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 19:37:59 -0400
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 19:37:59 -0400
Message-Id: <199506242337.TAA21743@mail.htp.com>
X-Sender: dennis@mail.htp.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
From: dennis@et.htp.com (dennis)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD as a router
Cc: davidg@root.com
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

Rodney yells.... 

>> >In dedicated router hardware they use the trick of interrupting
>> >the CPU after N bytes have been recieved (N is programmable) so
>> >they can actually decide what to do with the packet before it is
>> >even completly received.
>> >
>> >
>> This is not necessary to get good throughput, although it wouldn't hurt. You
>> can still get 5mbs without this, which is plenty.
>
>Not when you start looking at 100MB/sec ethernet it isn't!!!  Sure 400 to 500
>KByte/sec for 10MB/sec ethernet routing is just fine by me, but as soon as
>I reproduce the numbers for 100MB/sec routing you will see what I mean
>about we need to make some improvements.
>
>We need to get that routing performance into the 50MB/sec range and we are
>not even close.  (I seem to recall about 20MB/sec, but am not sure right
>now, too many numbers floating around in my head).
>
Of course, 5mbs is the upper limit with full frame forwarding on 10mbs
media, its 50mbs (1/2 of the bandwidth) with 100mbs media. You ought to know
that.

Dennis