From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jun 23 14:58:53 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id OAA27466 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:58:53 -0700 Received: from hutcs.cs.hut.fi (hutcs.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.2]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA27460 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:58:42 -0700 Received: from shadows.cs.hut.fi by hutcs.cs.hut.fi with SMTP id AA10808 (5.65c8/HUTCS-S 1.4 for ); Sat, 24 Jun 1995 00:57:53 +0300 From: Heikki Suonsivu Received: (hsu@localhost) by shadows.cs.hut.fi (8.6.10/8.6.10) id AAA00252; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 00:58:03 +0300 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 00:58:03 +0300 Message-Id: <199506232158.AAA00252@shadows.cs.hut.fi> To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com In-Reply-To: terry@cs.weber.edu's message of 23 Jun 1995 05:30:12 +0300 Subject: Re: FreeBSD as a router Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Otaniemi, Finland Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) I suspect there are bottlenecks everywhere. You can probably start with linear traversal of the routing table and non-seperate reader/writer locks coupled with a lack of kernel preemption. Its not CPU or bus performance problem, if there is no performance difference between a 386-40 and a 486-66. And both route at 400kB/s, at least with SMC 8013s onboard. Straight machine-machine throughput is 800-900kB/s. I understood that SMC's can't have more than one outgoing packet at a time which would be a good excuse, but how about better boards on PCI bus which can have multiple packets going both ways without CPU intervention? -- Heikki Suonsivu, T{ysikuu 10 C 83/02210 Espoo/FINLAND, hsu@cs.hut.fi home +358-0-8031121 work -4513377 fax -4555276 riippu SN