Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:50:39 +0200
From:      Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>
To:        Karim <fodillemlinkarim@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ipfw rule processing performances
Message-ID:  <20111025165039.GA8255@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
In-Reply-To: <4EA6D78F.6010607@gmail.com>
References:  <4EA6D78F.6010607@gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:36:47AM -0400, Karim wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I am using ipfw with a fairly small amount of rules (~200). Most of 
> those are skipto rules to different blocking and pass-through blocks. I 
> use ipfw tags, ALTQ, nat, fwd and several deny and allow rules and I do 
> not use/need tables.
> 
> What I find is around 400Mbps of traffic (~40kpps) an extremely high 
> amount of cpu usage related to firewall processing.
> 
> What I would like to know is if there is an ongoing work to optimise 
> ipfw and/or gather ideas on how to do that.
> 
> I realise my question has a large scope but I am not interested in 
> optimizing my ruleset I'd like to get a feel for how code wise the 
> current processing could be optimized (using multiple input TX/RX queues 
> for example, etc...).

we did some performance evaluation a couple of years ago,
mostly related to dummynet but there are some ipfw data too.

http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/papers/20100304-ccr.pdf

in summary, on a modern CPU i would expect to get to 200kpps
with moderate cpu usage, unless you have an expensive or
poorly designed ruleset. Unfortunately tags are very expensive,
but i have no idea of the nat overhead.

cheers
luigi

> Karim.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111025165039.GA8255>