From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Thu Apr 16 07:44:54 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B33FD2B48EC for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 07:44:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 492rpt4Jydz47gh; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 07:44:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org) Received: from venus.codepro.be (venus.codepro.be [5.9.86.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx1.codepro.be", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: kp) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 75B771F440; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 07:44:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org) Received: by venus.codepro.be (Postfix, authenticated sender kp) id 3EE15F97C; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:44:53 +0200 (CEST) From: "Kristof Provost" To: "Mark Saad" Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CFT: if_bridge performance improvements Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:44:52 +0200 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671) Message-ID: <26AE78A9-551E-4118-9955-DABD9745B380@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <467E538C-05C3-45B7-935B-FB20F6E20B01@longcount.org> References: <0C115843-FB05-40D7-B1D7-F9B7842E9B54@FreeBSD.org> <467E538C-05C3-45B7-935B-FB20F6E20B01@longcount.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 07:44:54 -0000 Hi Mark, I wouldn’t expect these changes to make a difference in the performance of this setup. My work mostly affects setups with multi-core systems that see a lot of traffic. Even before these changes I’d expect the if_bridge code to saturate a wifi link easily. I also wouldn’t expect ng_bridge vs. if_bridge to make a significant difference in wifi features. Best regards, Kristof On 16 Apr 2020, at 3:56, Mark Saad wrote: > Kristof > Up until a month ago I ran a set of FreeBSD based ap in my house and > even long ago at work . They were Pc engines apu ‘s or Alix’s with > one em/igb nic and one ath nic in a bridge . They worked well for a > long time however the need for more robust wifi setup caused me to > swap them out with cots aps from tp-link . The major issues were the > lack of WiFi features and standards that work oob on Linux based aps . > > So I always wanted to experiment with ng_bridge vs if_bridge for the > same task . But I never got around to it . Do you have any insight > into using one vs the other . Imho if_bridge is easier to setup and > get working . > > > --- > Mark Saad | nonesuch@longcount.org > >> On Apr 15, 2020, at 1:37 PM, Kristof Provost wrote: >> >> On 15 Apr 2020, at 19:16, Mark Saad wrote: >>> All >>> Should this improve wifi to wired bridges in some way ? Has this >>> been tested ? >>> >> What sort of setup do you have to bridge wired and wireless? Is the >> FreeBSD box also a wifi AP? >> >> I’ve not done any tests involving wifi. >> >> Best regards, >> Kristof