Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 08:50:34 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: Christopher Smith <csmith@its.uq.edu.au>, hardware@FreeBSD.ORG, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: High interrupt load on firewalls Message-ID: <20021009085034.E48709@carp.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20021009024946.D2682-100000@patrocles.silby.com>; from silby@silby.com on Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 02:53:43AM -0500 References: <B9C9FA56.30E7C%csmith@its.uq.edu.au> <20021009024946.D2682-100000@patrocles.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
my general attitude is that when you are hitting 100% cpu utilization, small performance improvements such as those deriving from m_getcl() are not relevant, and you might want to restructure your sw in order to get substantial performance improvements. In the specific case, at least reading from the comments, it seems that firewall processing is really the main cpu consumer, so they should revise their ruleset more than move to a different board, or use polling (i have polling patches for the intel gigabit adapter) What are the actual packet rates at which you are seeing problems ? cheers luigi On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 02:53:43AM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Christopher Smith wrote: > > > No, we use IPFilter (and that definitely isn't going to change any time > > soon). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021009085034.E48709>