On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 06:47:44PM +0100, Srebrenko Sehic wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 12:52:14PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:16:10PM +0100, Srebrenko Sehic wrote: > > > This is cosmetics. However, whouldn't we get some performance increase > > > if pf(4) didn't bother looking at packets (in certain situations) going > > > 'out' at all? > > please show me where that tiny little state search is a problem in real world. > We want pf(4) to outperform those nifty FWSM/5Gbps firewall blades. No?
chances are we do already? why in hell do you think that THIS is the bottleneck, if at all? where's your detailed performance analysis?
