Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:14:34 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Jim Thompson <jim@netgate.com> Cc: Olivier Cochard-Labb? <olivier@cochard.me>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Erich Weiler <weiler@soe.ucsc.edu> Subject: Re: pf performance? Message-ID: <20130427151434.GA76816@glebius.int.ru> In-Reply-To: <D19FA79A-5976-4E1D-A977-11747A672CA9@netgate.com> References: <5176E5C1.9090601@soe.ucsc.edu> <20130426134224.GV76816@FreeBSD.org> <CA%2Bq%2BTcru%2BYRc5JAumHBtWUu8C-WOFiAC3AckMmYthmZK9mT=MQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130427055349.GW76816@glebius.int.ru> <D19FA79A-5976-4E1D-A977-11747A672CA9@netgate.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jim, On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 07:58:04AM -0500, Jim Thompson wrote: J> > Unfortunately, as you see, most people avoid running head, waiting at least for 10.0-RELEASE, or even for pfSense catching up on FreeBSD 10. So probably this change won't be tested soon, and thus won't happen soon, J> As a minor part of the pfSense team, I believe you are mistaken. J> J> I'm out of the office right now, but when I return, I'd already planned to duplicate the test in a test harness with several multi-core boxes acting as source & sink, and the DUT to include several popular platforms for pfSense running a set of software including running same across -HEAD, 9-STABLE, and 8.3, both with the pfSense patches (as pfSense), and without. J> J> I doubt I'll get this done prior to BSDcan, but I'll get it done, if only for internal reasons. Good news! Thanks, Jim! -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130427151434.GA76816>