Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 14:13:58 -0700 From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> To: Network Coordinator <nc@ai.net> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD as a router Message-ID: <199506242113.OAA00135@corbin.Root.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 24 Jun 95 17:05:29 EDT." <Pine.BSF.3.91.950624170016.2548B-100000@aries.ai.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>So the problem is how to get BSD to handle packets faster. And I guess my >question still is, why can't we move some of the packet-handling and routing >directly into the driver where it is a few layers closer to the actual >hardware. Not really off loading, but giving the packet-handling code a >chunk of the CPU time (probably as much as it needs) w/o being able to be >squeezed out by other processes and such. If there is a way that can be found to do it in an architecturally clean way, then we may very do this...but is may not be necessary. I haven't had a chance to look carefully at where CPU is being spent when routing packets. On of these days... >There is a program called pc-route for DOS systems that supposedly is as >fat-free as code can be [no branches in the assembly source, etc]. On a >pentium with 2 100 mbps cards, I am wondering how fast it could move >packets to give a theoretical packet/s maximum. Anyone have a >configuration where they could try it? Last time I used pc-route, it crashed every 5-30 minutes. It's performance wasn't so hot, either. I haven't looked at it in a year or so, so perhaps the code has been improved. The main things that stick in my memory are that it was a black box, difficult to configure, impossible to troubleshoot, and had a broken RIP implementation. -DG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199506242113.OAA00135>