Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:55:19 +0200 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> To: sanjeev singh <remraf@hobbiton.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: natd limiting download speed? Message-ID: <20001201095519.A87903@sunbay.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSO.4.21.0012010041300.13692-100000@thorin>; from remraf@hobbiton.org on Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 01:01:23AM -0600 References: <20001115093938.A36400@sunbay.com> <Pine.BSO.4.21.0012010041300.13692-100000@thorin>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 01:01:23AM -0600, sanjeev singh wrote: > hi Ruslan, > > I tried using ipfilter/ipnat in place of ipfw/natd and got much better > performance: ~40% idle cycles during a 4mbps netperf test (as opposed to > ~0% idle cycles with natd). Got similar results under a NAT'd download. > > So, for the record, (at least on 486s) ipfilter/ipnat appears to be almost > twice as fast as ipfw/natd. > The primary reason is that natd(8) is a userland solution (as opposed to the ipnat), and every packet gets copied between userland and the kernel address space twice. -- Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA, ru@sunbay.com Sunbay Software AG, ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001201095519.A87903>