Hi Bob please see my comments inline On Sep 14, 2012, at 12:06 AM, Bob Bregant II <[email protected]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi all, > > I'm working on using PF_RING to provide load balancing across multiple > (non-libzero-aware) processes on a single host and documenting the > various options and their pros/cons to help me choose the best setup > for a given environment. Speed is always good, but proper load > balancing is better for my purposes. > > So far I've identified several choices that are available and was just > hoping that someone could provide a little input on whether I've got > this down properly (all of these assume that you're using the PF_RING > kernel module and userspace libraries as well as the PF_RING libpcap > and that you have quick_mode turned off): > > 1. Use the stock networking driver. > Does load balancing: No. (So this doesn't work well for this > application, unless you just want the speed boost of PF_RING and are > using one thread.) Actually you can use a cluster in this case. > Faster than: Not using PF_RING. > Working BPF: Yes. > > 2. Use a PF_RING-aware driver. > Does load balancing: Yes, RSS queue-based (rehashing possible? Not > sure how PF_RING clustering fits in here…). You can use both in-kernel rehashing (via pfring_enable_rss_rehash() in pf_ring, setting the PF_RING_RSS_REHASH env var in libpcap) or clustering as in (1). > Faster than: Option 1. > Working BPF: Yes. > > 3. Use a PF_RING DNA driver and DNA. > Does load balancing: Yes, RSS-queue-based. > Faster than: Option 2. > Working BPF: No. Libpcap includes userspace BPF support. > > > 4. Use a PF_RING DNA driver, DNA, and LibZero. > Does load balancing: Yes, dnacluster-based, 5-tuple by default, custom > hashing available. > Faster than: Option 3. Actually this is not faster than (3), both can do line-rate :-) this is definitely more flexible. Best Regards Alfredo > Working BPF: No. > > Does it seem like all of this is factually accurate? Are there any > considerations that one might be taking into account when deciding > between versions that I've omitted? (I've left out cost intentionally > as I'm looking at it from a purely technical perspective.) Are there > any options that I've omitted for running this application? > > Thanks, > > - -- > > Bob Bregant II > Office of Privacy and Information Assurance > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign > PGP Key: > http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3EF5417746B6DF9E > > Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAlBSWNYACgkQPvVBd0a2356OfQCeI+22lqBJ2aTSVSAv+DyKAvmn > T4YAnA8eSteNdnAypLb04/Z+qrle8BwK > =OcjM > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > Ntop-misc mailing list > [email protected] > http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc _______________________________________________ Ntop-misc mailing list [email protected] http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
