Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:46:42 -0700 From: Kip Macy <kmacy@freebsd.org> To: Marko Zec <zec@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r191259 - head/sys/netinet Message-ID: <3c1674c90904200846x717b8bd9n518f8144a2e4fdcc@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200904201004.19695.zec@freebsd.org> References: <200904190444.n3J4i5wF098362@svn.freebsd.org> <200904200929.57914.zec@freebsd.org> <3c1674c90904200047s551a93a3wec97607b8212b0d@mail.gmail.com> <200904201004.19695.zec@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Hmm, such a scheme raises suspicion that in your particular case very few flow > cache lookups could be serviced from CPU caches. 16MB + 80MB sounds to be in > range with memory footprint of a DFZ table stored in our normal radix tree - > so where's the benefit of the flow cache? > Well its a contrived example, you're not going to have any locality in either case. In a more common CDN scenario you don't have more than 20k clients, but FreeBSD could still not be used as an edge router because it could not handle forwarding 20Gbps. -Kip
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3c1674c90904200846x717b8bd9n518f8144a2e4fdcc>