On 11/20/12 3:30 PM, Barney Cordoba wrote:
--- On Tue, 11/20/12, Ingo Flaschberger <i...@xip.at> wrote:
From: Ingo Flaschberger <i...@xip.at>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD boxes as a 'router'...
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Date: Tuesday, November 20, 2012, 6:04 PM
Am 20.11.2012 23:49, schrieb Alfred
Perlstein:
On 11/20/12 2:42 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Nov 20, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Barney Cordoba <barney_cord...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion, but experimental
results have tended to show yours incorrect.
Jim
Agree with Jim. If you want pure packet
performance you burn a core to run a polling loop.
At new systems, without polling I had better performance and
no live-locks,
at old systems (Intel 82541GI) polling prevent live-locks.
Best test:
Loop a GigE Switch, inject a Packet and plug it into the
test-box.
Yeah, thats a good real-world test.
To me "performance" is not "burning a cpu" to get some extra pps.
Performance is not dropping buckets of packets. Performance is using
less cpu to do the same amount of work.
Is a machine that benchmarks at 998Mb/s at 95% cpu really a "higher
performance" system than one that does 970Mb/s and uses 50% of the cpu?
The measure of performance is to manage an entire load without dropping
any packets. If your machine goes into live-lock, then you need more
machine. Hacking it so that it drops packets is hardly a solution.
Any free CPU is wasted CPU. (unless you're concerned about power
consumption, then it's debatable).
-Alfred
_______________________________________________
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"
