--- On Sun, 5/9/10, Jack Vogel <jfvo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Jack Vogel <jfvo...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Intel 10Gb > To: "Barney Cordoba" <barney_cord...@yahoo.com> > Cc: "Murat Balaban" <mu...@enderunix.org>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, > freebsd-performa...@freebsd.org, "grarpamp" <grarp...@gmail.com>, "Vincent > Hoffman" <vi...@unsane.co.uk> > Date: Sunday, May 9, 2010, 1:12 PM > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:43 AM, > Barney Cordoba <barney_cord...@yahoo.com>wrote: > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 5/8/10, Murat Balaban <mu...@enderunix.org> > wrote: > > > > > From: Murat Balaban <mu...@enderunix.org> > > > Subject: Re: Intel 10Gb > > > To: "Vincent Hoffman" <vi...@unsane.co.uk> > > > Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, > freebsd-performa...@freebsd.org, > "grarpamp" > > <grarp...@gmail.com> > > > Date: Saturday, May 8, 2010, 8:59 AM > > > > > > Much of the FreeBSD networking stack has been > made parallel > > > in order to > > > cope with high packet rates at 10 Gig/sec > operation. > > > > > > I've seen good numbers (near 10 Gig) in my tests > involving > > > TCP/UDP > > > send/receive. (latest Intel driver). > > > > > > As far as BPF is concerned, above statement does > not hold > > > true, > > > since there is some work that needs to be done > here in > > > terms > > > of BPF locking and parallelism. My tests show > that there > > > is a high lock contention around "bpf interface > lock", > > > resulting > > > in input errors at high packet rates and with > many bpf > > > devices. > > > > > > I belive GSoC 2010 project, Multiqueue BPF, is a > milestone > > > for this: > > > http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/ideas.html#p-multiqbpf > > > > > > I'm also working on this problem myself and will > post a > > > diff whenever > > > I have something usable. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Murat > > > http://www.enderunix.org/murat/ > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2010-05-08 at 10:01 +0100, Vincent > Hoffman > > > > > > wrote: > > > > Looks a little like > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-all/2010-May/023679.html > > > > but for intel. cool. > > > > > > > > Vince > > > > On 07/05/2010 23:01, grarpamp wrote: > > > > > Just wondering in general these days > how close > > > FreeBSD is to > > > > > full 10Gb rates at various packet sizes > from > > > minimum ethernet > > > > > frame to max jumbo 65k++. For things > like BPF, > > > ipfw/pf, routing, > > > > > switching, etc. > > > > > http://www.ntop.org/blog/?p=86 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Blah, Blah, Blah. Let's see some real numbers on real > networks under > > real loads. Until then, you've got nothing. > > > > BC > > > > > > > Blah blah blah, you're one to talk, do you EVER do anything > but > criticize others? Nothing is right. > > Jack Those who expect pats on the back for not getting the job done have no chance of succeeding. Without criticism you only have delusion. I'm not criticizing the work, even though its worthy of criticism. I'm criticizing touting successes without any real-world evidence to support the claim. BC _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
