On Sep 19, 2013, at 16:08 , Luigi Rizzo <ri...@iet.unipi.it> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:54:34PM -0400, George Neville-Neil wrote: >> >> On Sep 14, 2013, at 15:24 , Luigi Rizzo <ri...@iet.unipi.it> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, September 14, 2013, Olivier Cochard-Labb? <oliv...@cochard.me> >>> wrote: >>>> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Luigi Rizzo <ri...@iet.unipi.it> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> IXIA ? For the timescales we need to address we don't need an IXIA, >>>>> a netmap sender is more than enough >>>>> >>>> >>>> The great netmap generates only one IP flow (same src/dst IP and same >>>> src/dst port). >>> >>> True the sample app generates only one flow but it is trivial to modify it >>> to generate multiple flows. My point was, we have the ability to generate >>> high rate traffic, as long as we do tolerate a .1-1us jitter. Beyond that, >>> you do need some ixia-like solution. >>> >> >> On the bandwidth side, can a modern sender with netmap really do a full 10G? >> I hate the cost of an >> IXIA but I have not been able to destroy our stack as effectively with >> anything else. > > yes george, you can download the picobsd image > > http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/netmap/20120618-netmap-picobsd-head-amd64.bin > > and try for yourself. > > Granted this does not have all the knobs of an ixia but it can > surely blast the full 14.88 Mpps to the link, and it only takes a > bit of userspace programming to generate reasonably arbitrary streams > of packets. A netmap sender/receiver is not CPU bound even with 1 core. >
Interesting. It's on my todo. Best, George
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
