On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 03:51:31PM -0800, Tiffany Snyder wrote:
> Hi Andre,
> are those numbers for small (64 bytes) packets? Good job on pushing
> the base numbers higher on the same HW.
>
> What piqued my attention was the note that our forwarding
> performance doesn't scale with
Andre Oppermann wrote:
Haven't looked at the multicast code so I can't comment. The other
stuff is just talk so far. No work in progress, at least from my side.
Insofaras rmlocks and cache line size vs rtentry size applies to multicast:
I know there are implementations out there which use th
H.fazaeli wrote:
Hi all
Where are 'those numbers' you are referring to? have I missed some message
in the thread?
Check the date below, Tiffany replied to an old message from 2 years ago
for some reason.
Kris
Thanks,
Tiffany.
On 12/29/05, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
_
Hi all
Where are 'those numbers' you are referring to? have I missed some message
in the thread?
Tiffany Snyder wrote:
Hi Andre,
are those numbers for small (64 bytes) packets? Good job on pushing
the base numbers higher on the same HW.
What piqued my attention was the note th
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Andre Oppermann wrote:
So far the PPS rate limit has primarily been the cache miss penalties
on the packet access. Multiple CPUs can help here of course for bi-
directional traffic. Hardware based packet header cache prefetching as
done by some embedded MIPS based netwo
Andre Oppermann wrote:
So far the PPS rate limit has primarily been the cache miss penalties
on the packet access. Multiple CPUs can help here of course for bi-
directional traffic. Hardware based packet header cache prefetching as
done by some embedded MIPS based network processors at least do
Tiffany Snyder wrote:
Hi Andre,
are those numbers for small (64 bytes) packets? Good job on pushing
the base numbers higher on the same HW.
Yes, 64 bytes. Haven't measured lately, but I assume PCI-E hardware
instead of PCI-X could push quite some more.
What piqued my attentio
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Tiffany Snyder wrote:
What piqued my attention was the note that our forwarding performance
doesn't scale with multiple CPUs. Which means there's a lot of work to be
done :-) Have we taken a look at OpenSolaris' Surya
(http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/networ
Hi Andre,
are those numbers for small (64 bytes) packets? Good job on pushing
the base numbers higher on the same HW.
What piqued my attention was the note that our forwarding
performance doesn't scale with multiple CPUs. Which means there's a lot of
work to be done :-) Have we tak
Andre Oppermann wrote:
Markus Oestreicher wrote:
Currently running a few routers on 5-STABLE I have read the
recent changes in the network stack with interest.
You should run 6.0R. It contains many improvements over 5-STABLE.
A few questions come to my mind:
- Can a machine tha
Markus Oestreicher wrote:
>
> Currently running a few routers on 5-STABLE I have read the
> recent changes in the network stack with interest.
You should run 6.0R. It contains many improvements over 5-STABLE.
> A few questions come to my mind:
>
> - Can a machine that mainly routes packets bet
Currently running a few routers on 5-STABLE I have read the
recent changes in the network stack with interest.
A few questions come to my mind:
- Can a machine that mainly routes packets between two em(4)
interfaces benefit from a second CPU and SMP kernel? Can both
CPUs process packets from the
12 matches
Mail list logo
