Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:56:39 +0200
From:      =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cochard=2DLabb=E9?= <olivier@cochard.me>
To:        Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>
Cc:        "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Sami Halabi <sodynet1@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: forwarding/ipfw/pf evolution (in pps) on -current
Message-ID:  <CA%2Bq%2BTcoDDfG3SQde2YO1SjzWWukTXjLG-ZXG3YxMcoh0y2fNEw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5178F72F.90008@freebsd.org>
References:  <CA%2Bq%2BTcpghAtae7%2BuXehxP9%2BtNh1TiTzxOShDNkLt_xSrgoBGdA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEW%2BogY%2BOmtqS7S1OOHXL8LnYSur5nfpJnvi=aM6vjCKH124Hw@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2Bq%2BTcpRZ_Dc=WTE522zWZ54VviaoQPsRT8%2BgWM%2BoRk5nUpOkg@mail.gmail.com> <5178F72F.90008@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>
> Again one has to be really careful drawing any firm conclusions from this
> as it was measured on a Pentium4 and UP kernel (GENERIC would add WITNESS
> and INVARIANT overhead as well).
>
> The Pentium4 is about the worst micro-architecture when it comes to locks
> and easily regresses.  At the same time modern Intel Core i[3-7] and AMD64
> may actually improve with these changes.  Unless more recent micro-archs
> have been shown to exhibit the same regression we can't claim this change
> was bad (other than for Pentium4).

OK, here are the results of the same bench on another server (HP
ProLiant DL320 G5):
- Dual Core: Intel Xeon CPU 3050 2.13GHz (2133.45-MHz K8-class CPU)
- NIC changed to dual 82571EB

Graph:
http://gugus69.free.fr/freebsd/benchs/current2/current-pps.png

gnuplot data:
http://gugus69.free.fr/freebsd/benchs/current2/plot/

ministat data:
http://gugus69.free.fr/freebsd/benchs/current2/ministat/

raw data:
http://gugus69.free.fr/freebsd/benchs/current2/raw/

Notice the Glebius' explanation regarding a unique one-flow test and
the new pf-smp behavior:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2013-April/035417.html

Regards,

Olivier



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2Bq%2BTcoDDfG3SQde2YO1SjzWWukTXjLG-ZXG3YxMcoh0y2fNEw>