Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 9 May 2010 10:12:25 -0700
From:      Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com>
To:        Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com>
Cc:        Murat Balaban <murat@enderunix.org>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>, Vincent Hoffman <vince@unsane.co.uk>
Subject:   Re: Intel 10Gb
Message-ID:  <AANLkTikqlggNUfxVABwxFTrimJYunldRcAJUMWE20gpL@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <473112.87657.qm@web63906.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References:  <1273323582.3304.31.camel@efe> <473112.87657.qm@web63906.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com>wrote:

>
>
> --- On Sat, 5/8/10, Murat Balaban <murat@enderunix.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Murat Balaban <murat@enderunix.org>
> > Subject: Re: Intel 10Gb
> > To: "Vincent Hoffman" <vince@unsane.co.uk>
> > Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, "grarpamp"
> <grarpamp@gmail.com>
> > Date: Saturday, May 8, 2010, 8:59 AM
> >
> > Much of the FreeBSD networking stack has been made parallel
> > in order to
> > cope with high packet rates at 10 Gig/sec operation.
> >
> > I've seen good numbers (near 10 Gig) in my tests involving
> > TCP/UDP
> > send/receive. (latest Intel driver).
> >
> > As far as BPF is concerned, above statement does not hold
> > true,
> > since there is some work that needs to be done here in
> > terms
> > of BPF locking and parallelism. My tests show that there
> > is a high lock contention around "bpf interface lock",
> > resulting
> > in input errors at high packet rates and with many bpf
> > devices.
> >
> > I belive GSoC 2010 project, Multiqueue BPF, is a milestone
> > for this:
> > http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/ideas.html#p-multiqbpf
> >
> > I'm also working on this problem myself and will post a
> > diff whenever
> > I have something usable.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Murat
> > http://www.enderunix.org/murat/
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 2010-05-08 at 10:01 +0100, Vincent Hoffman
> >
> >  wrote:
> > > Looks a little like
> > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-all/2010-May/023679.html
> > > but for intel. cool.
> > >
> > > Vince
> > > On 07/05/2010 23:01, grarpamp wrote:
> > > > Just wondering in general these days how close
> > FreeBSD is to
> > > > full 10Gb rates at various packet sizes from
> > minimum ethernet
> > > > frame to max jumbo 65k++. For things like BPF,
> > ipfw/pf, routing,
> > > > switching, etc.
> > > > http://www.ntop.org/blog/?p=86
> > > > _______________________________________________
>
> Blah, Blah, Blah. Let's see some real numbers on real networks under
> real loads. Until then, you've got nothing.
>
> BC
>
>
>
Blah blah blah, you're one to talk, do you EVER do anything but
criticize others? Nothing is right.

Jack



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikqlggNUfxVABwxFTrimJYunldRcAJUMWE20gpL>