From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jun 24 12:54:09 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id MAA22751 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 12:54:09 -0700 Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA22745 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 12:54:07 -0700 Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin [198.145.90.18]) by Root.COM (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA00686; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 12:54:05 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.11/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA00491; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 12:54:27 -0700 Message-Id: <199506241954.MAA00491@corbin.Root.COM> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" cc: dennis@et.htp.com (dennis), freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD as a router In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 24 Jun 95 12:14:36 PDT." <199506241914.MAA13409@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> From: David Greenman Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 12:54:26 -0700 Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >> This is not necessary to get good throughput, although it wouldn't hurt. You >> can still get 5mbs without this, which is plenty. > >Not when you start looking at 100MB/sec ethernet it isn't!!! Sure 400 to 500 >KByte/sec for 10MB/sec ethernet routing is just fine by me, but as soon as >I reproduce the numbers for 100MB/sec routing you will see what I mean >about we need to make some improvements. > >We need to get that routing performance into the 50MB/sec range and we are >not even close. (I seem to recall about 20MB/sec, but am not sure right >now, too many numbers floating around in my head). On a fast Pentium, it is possible to route packets at a rate >70Mbits/sec in FreeBSD-current. ...but this is talking raw data throughput. In terms of packets/sec, we don't do so well...about 10000 packets/sec is about tops. This is less than 1/10th the capability of 100BASE-TX. -DG