From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 6 16:37:04 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA6044DF for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 16:37:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.scaleengine.net (beauharnois2.bhs1.scaleengine.net [142.4.218.15]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9432B7EE for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 16:37:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.1.1] (S01060001abad1dea.hm.shawcable.net [50.70.146.73]) (Authenticated sender: allan.jude@scaleengine.com) by mx1.scaleengine.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C521E72654 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 16:36:56 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53690FA6.4050708@allanjude.com> Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 12:36:54 -0400 From: Allan Jude User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: performance of ipfw and pf in CURRENT? References: <20140506182628.36c98065.ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <20140506182628.36c98065.ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PFBP9LB94058oJEXarI8DcLFrQdjvWaA4" X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 16:37:04 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --PFBP9LB94058oJEXarI8DcLFrQdjvWaA4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2014-05-06 12:26, O. Hartmann wrote: >=20 > A while ago some performance graphs were floating around here showing t= he net > performance of ipfw and pf. pf was, as far as I can remember, the singl= e threaded > version. Are there more recent performance benchmarks available? Even i= f pf in FreeBSD is > still behind pf in recent OpenBSD, FreeBSD has now an threaded adaption= and it would be > nice to see the overall performance for both. >=20 > Thanks, > oh >=20 I know at NYCBSDCon there was some talk about the improvements in IPFW in 10 that makes it even faster as well. Numbers or graphs on this would have been helpful for an article I just wrote about IPFW. --=20 Allan Jude --PFBP9LB94058oJEXarI8DcLFrQdjvWaA4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTaQ+qAAoJEJrBFpNRJZKfVNEP/jCkv6I5GX+o/+P5WgwqaJZi qDsQxd/Qdht1FJaA/rDXyKLakiGaTLbYPBmWdijUOWuSx+KFexbHBg8e3E2LDDUv Gs5W/Y3Q+1GK3EsXgndqbZsWxVTFt1ts0aRx6rvhWWd4PrkinVQoetfU71fYZdwc 9dfsewnYTRgLCmrn9Azg6KRNbIXZxQf4cwFLTdDuK83mJeaxlkD6yYikoLz7IsLF ZilmEYaBT3OkJENcZSx7bCcLSftFcfmQF0W47kM/EQu/J9okvDmjgOA/tMoP58Nt pYH7VwIoLTYeMFGfY5g/WDyhmryqfMEXLHFhq93XVmDoypsPqFi9r7Esr3s8ot+K utRaLWntDQUZNnSZKmOWPXNuvbH2Ml8EIClMYAoiKdx5GQlAfnnQ5dmzWFzLbQDW M1wJrB1eHZi46xWq7QuvPO+Tre1fx80IlrA8B0ktPEPbqfUX/ZJxr4S+2p2m2F2n iwtHgV1NEywwn91Wl2GG06pLiv81qlPvsNHAMGS3f5aY49+3ChgmnYt1vQMN9ugd 4zIYCDfuO5mfVh1ngPE8JkhUM3fn0SvxKBhgytnnY5cRaNRvY+13YCYg8GYvaKM8 lj+5Ro2fCoPTGSnjA0+z/Kut1Bac2vRtpAESl30f48LTIDIJq6VLkGl+vOIE8M9I yiC0TQDMNqo3dT69EH5A =o3hW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PFBP9LB94058oJEXarI8DcLFrQdjvWaA4--