Sebastien Roy wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
I'd bet, with a high degree of confidence, that if you tried doing an
IP forwarding test with small packets, you'd find that performance
improvements are _not_ in the noise, unless your noise filter is set
too low.
I used the DIY perf PIT, and my observations are that there is a lot
of noise in their test runs due to small sample sizes.
You can actually get very, very reproducible performance results without
needing large sample sizes. Within a test that takes just 10 minutes to
run using the Smartbits hardware, I can get quite repeatable results for
IP forwarding.
Of course, I've been very very focused on the most extreme end of CPU
bound processing, which is trying to route 64-byte packets...
Another way to test would be to try doing performance runs with a 10g
card using something _other_ than TCP (UDP rx would be good). Look
at the improvements to the packets-per-second count rather than the
thruput numbers. :-)
If you're not CPU bound, you won't see the benefit.
Right. I wanted to run sanity tests to verify that I had not made
things worse. Performance improvement was not a primary goal, so I
did not spend many resources evaluating potential positive performance
impact.
Sure. Once your changes get into the gate, I'd be interested to see
what happens to our Sitara numbers. I had already #if 0'd at least the
mobile IP checks in front of ip_fast_forward(), in anticipation of these
changes. ;-)
-- Garrett
-Seb
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
