Re: pf vs mp

On 2015-09-02, Dot Yet wrote: > Any idea if running an ipsec vpn or openvpn on the same machine will > benefit from the second core? working remotely over VPN is quite common > these days. so all the extra juice may help encryption etc. is it so? Using a processor that

Re: pf vs mp

OpenVPN will eat cpu in userspace mostly so that one will most certainly find use for MP systems. IPSec runs in the kernel and will for a while be "limited" to one core, though for many applications, that one core will still do more crypto than needed, unless you are pushing it hard over the VPN.

Re: pf vs mp

Em 01-09-2015 22:40, Quartz escreveu: > And when I say "fanless" I mean *completely* fanless, there won't even > be any fans in the chassis or power supply, so low TDP is super > important, and that ends up meaning low performance. It's not clear to > me yet how close to the margin we'll end up

Re: pf vs mp

Em 01-09-2015 22:26, Quartz escreveu: > OK, so after more info you're switching to the mp side? If that's true > then all the latest recommendations from this afternoon forwards are > in favor of mp. Re-read all my emails. Just because I said I use single core, doesn't mean I switched sides. As I

Re: pf vs mp

You really need to specify which chips you are looking at. Or even which range of chips. Huge difference between a single core atom vs a 16 core monster. I know you've said embedded systems, so you should be able to provide some idea of CPUs. Anything else is just a waste of time because of

Re: pf vs mp

I think you are focusing on the thing that will probably give you less problems, the CPU. These kind of systems tend to have problems with a lot of things, *before* you ever get to the CPU. Such as? These aren't going to be doing hardly any disk IO and they don't need fancy graphics, so

Re: pf vs mp

Is it not possible to buy two or three representative models and test them to find out which of celeron, atom, or amd is fastest? Well as restrictive as our requirements are, there are still a few too many options for that. I kinda wanted to narrow it down some more first.

Re: pf vs mp

Quartz wrote: > > On a more serious note, I don't see how one can actually buy faster > > single-core performance for this purpose. If the question was more > > detailed, describing specific models of machines, we'd be able to > > show it makes no financial sense. The cheapest stuff is good

Re: pf vs mp

Quartz, I'm sorry I'm not familiar with either of the processor's you're describing. In the vague terms you have given, I am 100% that the answer is use the multicore setup. On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Quartz wrote: > but the short answer is to use the >>

Re: pf vs mp

Em 01-09-2015 14:21, Quartz escreveu: > Also, does a local DNS resolver really consume that much cpu that it > would see any notable effect from having another core? I thought that > was more a RAM thing. If it will be the resolver for your entire internal LAN (and the firewall itself), then it

Re: pf vs mp

A small office isn't that much different from a home server. It's not actually a small office, that's just the best analogy I could think of. I see, that more than really wanting to know if you'd be ok with mp, you're seeking validation to go through with a single core. Well... that's

Re: pf vs mp

Em 01-09-2015 14:18, Quartz escreveu: > It's not actually a small office, that's just the best analogy I could > think of. My home server many times ends up having more traffic to deal with than my small office. So an analogy not always plays in our favour. > Well... that's kind of the same

Re: pf vs mp

Dhcp, no. DNS, yes. Also, does a local DNS resolver really consume that much cpu that it would see any notable effect from having another core? I thought that was more a RAM thing.

Re: pf vs mp

not paying a context-switching tax during these simultaneous load events will make a bigger difference than any other single factor. I guess that's what I was getting at in my original poorly worded question: at what point do context switches negate the benefit of a faster single core (given

Re: pf vs mp

but the short answer is to use the multi-processor system. The single core will perform better when you care nothing about your performance, the multi-core system will perform better the only time you care at all about performance. I think some information is getting lost here. I'm not

Re: pf vs mp

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: > Em 01-09-2015 14:21, Quartz escreveu: > > Also, does a local DNS resolver really consume that much cpu that it > > would see any notable effect from having another core? I thought that > > was more a RAM thing. >

Re: pf vs mp

Are you doing anything above 5Gbps? Or above 500k pps? if not, get whichever. If you are, then higher frequency cores are better; today. If you are running dhcp server, then you are likely not. On 2015 Aug 31 (Mon) at 22:38:47 -0400 (-0400), Quartz wrote: :Quick question: I need to make a

Re: pf vs mp

Any idea if running an ipsec vpn or openvpn on the same machine will benefit from the second core? working remotely over VPN is quite common these days. so all the extra juice may help encryption etc. is it so? On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Quartz wrote: > Maybe this

Re: pf vs mp

> Quartz [qua...@sneakertech.com] wrote: > > Quick question: I need to make a decision between a faster single core and a > > slower multicore. The faq currently states that pf gets no improvement from > > mp. Is this still correct/current information? Presumably it would see no > > benefit from

Re: pf vs mp

I red all thoughts till now and my advice is if you are going to buy a new hardware now (year 2015) take multi core CPU. The OpenBSD just get better every day and if you follow tech@, source-changes@ and misc@ you already know that our beloved OS soon or later will spread load on all CPU/CORES

Re: pf vs mp

I'm sorry I'm not familiar with either of the processor's you're describing. In the vague terms you have given, I haven't described any specific models yet, I'm being a little vague because I was looking more for general guidance than having the list debate the pros and cons of dozens of

Re: pf vs mp

On a more serious note, I don't see how one can actually buy faster single-core performance for this purpose. If the question was more detailed, describing specific models of machines, we'd be able to show it makes no financial sense. The cheapest stuff is good enough. As I said before, I

Re: pf vs mp

The recommendation that people use SP kernels for networking is no longer valid. Ah, thank you for mentioning this explicitly. I had a memory of this kicking around at the bottom of my subconscious. I knew there was something else about this issue but couldn't put my finger on it.

Re: pf vs mp

Maybe this webpage would help you make an informed choice? https://calomel.org/pf_config.html That looks like a good reference for setting up pf and the right way to architect your pf.conf, but it doesn't appear to address any of the cpu threading issues I'm trying to figure out. Thanks

Re: pf vs mp

The short answer is, unless you can guarantee that pf will have its own core and no other process will race against it (you can't), then go for the mp. OK, so after more info you're switching to the mp side? If that's true then all the latest recommendations from this afternoon forwards are in

Re: pf vs mp

As I said before, I think information is getting lost here in the discussion. The issue is we need something that fits within certain restrictive thermal/size/power/noise limits; these are all fanless setups and some might even be battery powered. And when I say "fanless" I mean *completely*

Re: pf vs mp

Quartz [qua...@sneakertech.com] wrote: > Quick question: I need to make a decision between a faster single core and a > slower multicore. The faq currently states that pf gets no improvement from > mp. Is this still correct/current information? Presumably it would see no > benefit from

Re: pf vs mp

> On Sep 1, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Quartz wrote: > > there won't even be any fans in the chassis or power supply, so low TDP is super important, and that ends up meaning low performance Embedded systems can often benefit from efficient power design & inefficiency can unduly

Re: pf vs mp

Em 01-09-2015 16:06, Quartz escreveu: > I think some information is getting lost here. I'm not comparing > single vs multi core operation in a purely mathematical sense on > identical hardware. I'm trying to decide between a setup that uses a > relatively fast single core vs a setup that uses

Re: pf vs mp

Maybe this webpage would help you make an informed choice? https://calomel.org/pf_config.html Sent from my iPod > On 01 Sep 2015, at 04:38, Quartz wrote: > > Quick question: I need to make a decision between a faster single core and a > slower multicore. The faq

Re: pf vs mp

On 01.09.2015 22:06, Quartz wrote: but the short answer is to use the multi-processor system. The single core will perform better when you care nothing about your performance, the multi-core system will perform better the only time you care at all about performance. I think some information

Re: pf vs mp

On 9/1/2015 3:40 PM, Joseph Borg wrote: > Maybe this webpage would help you make an informed choice? > > https://calomel.org/pf_config.html > You must be new around here. -- James Shupe

Re: pf vs mp

> Quick question: I need to make a decision between a faster single core > and a slower multicore. Quick answer: faster multiple cores within similar thermal envelope, i.e. newer lithography.

Re: pf vs mp

For an OpenBSD machine acting as a gateway/firewall/router with a handful of related tasks (pf, dhcp server, etc) would mp yield anything? Of course, yes. Just because PF doesn't get any benefits (yet) from MP, it doesn't mean these other programs won't. Sorry that was unclear wording on my

Re: pf vs mp

Em 01-09-2015 10:21, Quartz escreveu: > > Sorry that was unclear wording on my part. This machine is 95% pf > routing with some dhcp/dns on the side- AFAIK those won't account for > much so if there's nothing else there wouldn't really be a benefit > going multicore, right? Dhcp, no. DNS, yes. As

Re: pf vs mp

are we talking home router here or something more specialized? A little more specialized. It's a sort of embedded system and it needs to fit within some size/thermal/watts/noise constraints. It needs to serve something roughly equivalent to a small office. now if i needed a

pf vs mp

Quick question: I need to make a decision between a faster single core and a slower multicore. The faq currently states that pf gets no improvement from mp. Is this still correct/current information? Presumably it would see no benefit from hyperthreading either, right? For an OpenBSD machine

Re: pf vs mp

Em 31-08-2015 23:38, Quartz escreveu: > Quick question: I need to make a decision between a faster single core > and a slower multicore. The faq currently states that pf gets no > improvement from mp. Is this still correct/current information? Not anymore. There has been some work on mp support,

Re: pf vs mp

On 2015.08.31, Quartz wrote: > For an OpenBSD machine acting as a gateway/firewall/router with a handful of > related tasks (pf, dhcp server, etc) would mp yield anything? are we talking home router here or something more specialized? there is not really any *negative* to mp besides maybe