On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:35:13 +0300
ValdikSS wrote:
> I'm trying to increase OpenVPN throughput by optimizing tun manipulations,
> too.
> Right now I have more questions than answers.
>
> I get about 800 Mbit/s speeds via OpenVPN with authentication and encryption
>
On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 07:03:09PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Stephen Hemminger
> wrote:
>
> > Rather than bodge AF_PACKET onto TUN, why not just create a new device type
> > and control it from something modern like netlink.
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 04:30:55PM +0300, ValdikSS wrote:
> I'm trying to increase OpenVPN throughput by optimizing tun manipulations,
> too.
> Right now I have more questions than answers.
>
> I get about 800 Mbit/s speeds via OpenVPN with authentication and encryption
> disabled on a local
I'm trying to increase OpenVPN throughput by optimizing tun manipulations, too.
Right now I have more questions than answers.
I get about 800 Mbit/s speeds via OpenVPN with authentication and encryption
disabled on a local machine with OpenVPN server and client running in a
different
network
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Stephen Hemminger
wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 00:28:57 +0200
> Guus Sliepen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 05:20:50PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>>
>> > >> I'm trying to reduce system call overhead when
On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 00:28:57 +0200
Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 05:20:50PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>
> > >> I'm trying to reduce system call overhead when reading/writing to/from a
> > >> tun device in userspace. [...] What would be the right way to do
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 05:20:50PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> >> I'm trying to reduce system call overhead when reading/writing to/from a
> >> tun device in userspace. [...] What would be the right way to do this?
> >>
> > Personally I think tun could benefit greatly if it were implemented as
>
From: Tom Herbert
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:18:48 -0400
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Guus Sliepen wrote:
>> I'm trying to reduce system call overhead when reading/writing to/from a
>> tun device in userspace. For sockets, one can use
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> I'm trying to reduce system call overhead when reading/writing to/from a
> tun device in userspace. For sockets, one can use sendmmsg()/recvmmsg(),
> but a tun fd is not a socket fd, so this doesn't work. I'm see several
>
I'm trying to reduce system call overhead when reading/writing to/from a
tun device in userspace. For sockets, one can use sendmmsg()/recvmmsg(),
but a tun fd is not a socket fd, so this doesn't work. I'm see several
options to allow userspace to read/write multiple packets with one
syscall:
-
10 matches
Mail list logo