Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:32:06 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: netgraph locking / performance [was: ... AOE] Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0409060922420.10056@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <4135118A.5030807@samsco.org> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Scott Long wrote: Hi, > My employer has done extensive profiling of packet delivery through > netgraph. While the locking of the netgraph framework is definitely > correct, it's not terribly efficient and leads to a good deal of > latency. We are looking at various proposals on how to address this. > This isn't a criticism of you or Netgraph, just a set 'real-life' > observations under very high load (bridging and packet inspection on > 4 GigE links simultaneously qualifies as high load =-) could please explain a bit more / give some numbers ? Or are there any published results ? What do you mean by 'packet inspection' ? And what hardware did you use to fill up 4GigE pipes ? -- Greetings Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.53.0409060922420.10056>