Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:58:07 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@freebsd.org> Cc: Pawel Tyll <ptyll@nitronet.pl>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Firewall Profiling. Message-ID: <4EFA3F6F.9040404@sentex.net> In-Reply-To: <4EF9ADBC.8090402@FreeBSD.org> References: <1498545030.20111227015431@nitronet.pl> <4EF9ADBC.8090402@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/27/2011 6:36 AM, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: >> Is IPFW efficient enough to firewall 2x10GE (in+out) interfaces >> without much latency increase, when running on modern hardware >> with Intel NICs? Majority of processing tasks would probably be setfib >> according to matches in tables. > IPFW seems to add more or less constant overhead per rule. In our setup, > ~20 rules increase load by 100% (one core). We are able to reach 10GE > (1.1mpps) on some routers with most packets travelling 8-10 ipfw rules. > However, even with ipfw add 1 allow ip from any to any > 1.1 mpps routing utilizes E5645 by more that 80%. (with IGP routes in > rtable only). YMMV, but 2x10G is too much at the moment even without ipfw. Dont some of the modern 10G adapters support filtering in the card itself ? eg cxgbe. ---Mike -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EFA3F6F.9040404>