Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:45:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: netgraph locking / performance [was: ... AOE] Message-ID: <20040906113737.X16723@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0409060922420.10056@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0408311611550.7530@athena> <4134DF35.7070605@freebsd.org><4134E4B6.2030409@elischer.org> <4134FCAE.7374599A@freebsd.org> <4134FF74.4010105@freebsd.org> <4135051E.2070007@elischer.org> <4135118A.5030807@samsco.org> <Pine.BSF.4.53.0409060922420.10056@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: BAZ>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Scott Long wrote: BAZ> BAZ>Hi, BAZ> BAZ>> My employer has done extensive profiling of packet delivery through BAZ>> netgraph. While the locking of the netgraph framework is definitely BAZ>> correct, it's not terribly efficient and leads to a good deal of BAZ>> latency. We are looking at various proposals on how to address this. BAZ>> This isn't a criticism of you or Netgraph, just a set 'real-life' BAZ>> observations under very high load (bridging and packet inspection on BAZ>> 4 GigE links simultaneously qualifies as high load =-) BAZ> BAZ>could please explain a bit more / give some numbers ? Or are there BAZ>any published results ? What do you mean by 'packet inspection' ? That would also interest me. I did measurements with my satellite link simulator (a netgraph node) and got a couple of 100usec latency when pushing 150k ATM cells through the node (each cell counting as a packet). including the processing of the two ATM adapters. Does this already count as high latency? harti
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040906113737.X16723>