Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:38:14 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ng_ether(4) performance implications Message-ID: <56CD1796.30002@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <68CCCC44-B14D-4CD5-ACC6-FB8A7F8E6FB9@lastsummer.de> References: <68CCCC44-B14D-4CD5-ACC6-FB8A7F8E6FB9@lastsummer.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23/02/2016 7:09 AM, Franco Fichtner wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm working on FreeBSD-based configuration code dating back more > than 5 years. Although this code uses NETGRAPH compiled into the > kernel, it also makes use of NGM_ETHER_DETACH and a self-rolled > NGM_ETHER_ATTACH to avoid having netgraph-attached interfaces when > mpd isn't needed. > > In 2016, how is the state of ng_ether(4) performance to assert > whether this approach is actually useful or not. the performance is much as it always was.. ng_ether passes packets to the next ng module as fast as they come. netgraph does sacrifice some speed for generality, but I think it's not too much. > > Seeing that NGM_ETHER_ATTACH is not available and should usefulness > be implicated, would code for NGM_ETHER_ATTACH be merged into > FreeBSD? sure.. diffs always appreciated. > > > Thanks, > Franco > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56CD1796.30002>