> "Terry" == Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Terry> The patches I'm interested in you seeing, though, are patches
Terry> for support of LRP in FreeBSD-current. If you have a testing
Terry> setup that can benchmark them, then you can prove them out
Terry> relative to the current code
Mattias Pantzare wrote:
> > The problem is that they don't tell me about where you are measuring
> > your packets-per-second rate, or how it's being measured, or whether
> > the interrupt or processing load is high enough to trigger livelock,
> > or not, or the size of the packet. And is that a un
David Gilbert wrote:
> Terry> The problem is that they don't tell me about where you are
> Terry> measuring your packets-per-second rate, or how it's being
> Terry> measured, or whether the interrupt or processing load is high
> Terry> enough to trigger livelock, or not, or the size of the packet.
>
> The problem is that they don't tell me about where you are measuring
> your packets-per-second rate, or how it's being measured, or whether
> the interrupt or processing load is high enough to trigger livelock,
> or not, or the size of the packet. And is that a unidirectional or
> bidirection
> "Terry" == Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Terry> These stats are moderately meaningless.
Terry> The problem is that they don't tell me about where you are
Terry> measuring your packets-per-second rate, or how it's being
Terry> measured, or whether the interrupt or processing load
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> 100mbit/s / 200kp/s = 500 bytes per packet
>
> ...and that an absolute top end. Somehow, I think the packets are
> smaller.
Just for the record...
Measurement studies[1] (and NLANR traces[2]) suggest that the average
packet size on the I
David Gilbert wrote:
> > "Terry" == Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Terry> By "it", I guess you mean "FreeBSD"?
> Terry> What are your performance goals?
>
> Right now, I'd like to see 500 to 600 kpps.
>
> Terry> Where is FreeBSD relative to those goals, right now, without
> Terry
> "Richard" == Richard Sharpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> However, given that they were full 1500B frames (99%), at
Richard> least in one direction, perhaps that does not count.
That's exactly the point. With large frames, you can get high rates
of traffic. With smaller frames, rat
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, David Gilbert wrote:
> > "Terry" == Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Terry> By "it", I guess you mean "FreeBSD"?
>
> Terry> What are your performance goals?
>
> Right now, I'd like to see 500 to 600 kpps.
>
> Terry> Where is FreeBSD relative to those goals
> "Terry" == Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Terry> By "it", I guess you mean "FreeBSD"?
Terry> What are your performance goals?
Right now, I'd like to see 500 to 600 kpps.
Terry> Where is FreeBSD relative to those goals, right now, without
Terry> you doing anything to it?
Withou
Alex Newman wrote:
> >I'm well aware of the Click Router project (which dealt with data
> >at layer 3, not layer 4, BTW).
>
> But I could have for instance zebra taking care of the control plane
> and click working with the data plane right?
You're missing the point, which is that they've effectiv
>I'm well aware of the Click Router project (which dealt with data at layer 3, not
>layer 4, BTW).
But I could have for instance zebra taking care of the control plane and click working
with the data plane right?
>Among other things, it rewrote the ethernet card firmware to get the packets per
Alex Newman wrote:
> > Yes, you could do this.
> >
> > The Netgraph TCP/IP is a good idea for research work, but a bad
> > idea for general implementation purposes, since it's performance
> > will be very poor, compared to a monolithic TCP/IP implementation.
>
> Interesting, why is click so fast th
> > Could we implement {bgp & ospf} in netgraph?
> > What would need to be done assuming the Netgraph TCP/IP happen?
> > Is this a bad idea.
>
> Yes, you could do this.
>
> The Netgraph TCP/IP is a good idea for research work, but a bad
> idea for general implementation purposes, since it's perf
Alex Newman wrote:
> Could we implement {bgp & ospf} in netgraph?
> What would need to be done assuming the Netgraph TCP/IP happen?
> Is this a bad idea.
Yes, you could do this.
The Netgraph TCP/IP is a good idea for research work, but a bad
idea for general implementation purposes, since it's p
Could we implement {bgp & ospf} in netgraph? What would need to be done assuming the
Netgraph TCP/IP happen? Is this a bad idea.
Alex Newman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wuli.nu/users/dolemite
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the me
16 matches
Mail list logo
