Re: Router performance amd64 vs i386
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 04:27:23PM +0200, Janne Johansson wrote: ..or, if it really is important for you, why not set up a test and benchmark it? I have no idea if or when amd64 would have surpassed i386 in performance, and if it is better how much better. But if this was an important topic worthy of the science, then by all means do test it on your particular hardware and present the results. I do tend to agree with the comments already posted so I won't repeat them, but if +/-5% is seriously interesting enough for people to keep remembering and asking for, then it surely would be worth making a small effort too, no? 2015-05-26 0:42 GMT+02:00 Bill Buhler b...@buhlerfamily.org: I'm preparing a new flash image for an Intel Atom dual core based router with 2gb of ram. I'm curious if there are current comments on the current performance of the two platforms? I know in the past the i386 was actually faster at things like PF, but that was several years ago. Also ask yourself if a few % more speed is worth to have no proper W^X support. At least unless you run -current and even then amd64 has probably the most restrictive W^X policy for userland and kernel. Also more people are running amd64 and so has better testing in general. -- :wq Claudio I'll throw out an unsubstantiated guess, the change to 64 bit time makes amd64 perform better than i386 at packet filtering. Disclaimer, no idea how often time is interesting in a standard pure packet filtering environment.
Re: Router performance amd64 vs i386
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 04:27:23PM +0200, Janne Johansson wrote: ..or, if it really is important for you, why not set up a test and benchmark it? I have no idea if or when amd64 would have surpassed i386 in performance, and if it is better how much better. But if this was an important topic worthy of the science, then by all means do test it on your particular hardware and present the results. I do tend to agree with the comments already posted so I won't repeat them, but if +/-5% is seriously interesting enough for people to keep remembering and asking for, then it surely would be worth making a small effort too, no? 2015-05-26 0:42 GMT+02:00 Bill Buhler b...@buhlerfamily.org: I'm preparing a new flash image for an Intel Atom dual core based router with 2gb of ram. I'm curious if there are current comments on the current performance of the two platforms? I know in the past the i386 was actually faster at things like PF, but that was several years ago. Also ask yourself if a few % more speed is worth to have no proper W^X support. At least unless you run -current and even then amd64 has probably the most restrictive W^X policy for userland and kernel. Also more people are running amd64 and so has better testing in general. -- :wq Claudio
Re: Router performance amd64 vs i386
..or, if it really is important for you, why not set up a test and benchmark it? I have no idea if or when amd64 would have surpassed i386 in performance, and if it is better how much better. But if this was an important topic worthy of the science, then by all means do test it on your particular hardware and present the results. I do tend to agree with the comments already posted so I won't repeat them, but if +/-5% is seriously interesting enough for people to keep remembering and asking for, then it surely would be worth making a small effort too, no? 2015-05-26 0:42 GMT+02:00 Bill Buhler b...@buhlerfamily.org: I'm preparing a new flash image for an Intel Atom dual core based router with 2gb of ram. I'm curious if there are current comments on the current performance of the two platforms? I know in the past the i386 was actually faster at things like PF, but that was several years ago. Thanks, Bill Buhler -- May the most significant bit of your life be positive.
Router performance amd64 vs i386
I'm preparing a new flash image for an Intel Atom dual core based router with 2gb of ram. I'm curious if there are current comments on the current performance of the two platforms? I know in the past the i386 was actually faster at things like PF, but that was several years ago. Thanks, Bill Buhler
Re: Router performance amd64 vs i386
On 05/25/15 18:41, Bill Buhler wrote: I'm preparing a new flash image for an Intel Atom dual core based router ^^ with 2gb of ram. I'm curious if there are current comments on the current performance of the two platforms? I know in the past the i386 was actually faster at things like PF, but that was several years ago. If amd64 vs i386 matters on your Atom, you got the wrong hw. Why did you buy a slow computer THEN suddenly worry about small performance differences? You need to replace that hardware before putting it into production with something you know will do the job. Many seem to think tuning a firewall is like drag racing, where every 1% might be the difference between winning and losing. It isn't. It is like driving in traffic -- you can't go faster than any of a number of potential bottlenecks (speed limit [network adapters], car in front of you [other users], police [ISP bandwidth], etc.). You adjust the things that actually slow you down, and fiddling with anything else is 100% wasted effort. It doesn't matter if your CPU is 90% idle or 80% idle, the packets are all getting through. If it is 10% idle vs. 20% idle, you have the wrong hardware and are having (or soon will have) problems. Nick.
Re: Router performance amd64 vs i386
On 25 May 2015 at 20:05, Nick Holland n...@holland-consulting.net wrote: Many seem to think tuning a firewall is like drag racing, where every 1% might be the difference between winning and losing. It isn't. It is like driving in traffic -- you can't go faster than any of a number of potential bottlenecks (speed limit [network adapters], car in front of you [other users], police [ISP bandwidth], etc.). Great analogy. Thanks for making this so clear! -- --- inum: 883510009027723 sip: jungleboo...@sip2sip.info xmpp: jungle-boo...@jit.si
