Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 19:59:32 -0800 (PST) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: death@southcom.com.au Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 4.0 slower than 3.4? Message-ID: <200001090359.TAA63459@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000109021927.00dba250@mail.southcom.com.au> References: <ABD44D466F85D311A69900A0C900DB6BC5D5@staff.accessus.net> <4.2.2.20000109021927.00dba250@mail.southcom.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <4.2.2.20000109021927.00dba250@mail.southcom.com.au>, james <death@southcom.com.au> wrote: > It's interesting though how i had no ipf rules whatsoever, yet it > introduced so much latency, as Alexander has pointed out in another email. > Why is ipf so slow? I was planning on switching from ipfw/natd to > ipf/ipnat, but i don't think i want to now - considering it's so darn slow. If you want to do NAT, I can tell you without even trying it that ipfilter's NAT will be much faster than natd's. With natd, every packet has to go out from the kernel to userland and back to have its headers rewritten. That's a lot of overhead. Not so with ipfilter -- it's all done inside the kernel. John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001090359.TAA63459>