Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:57:32 +0200 | From | Michael Bellion and Thomas Heinz <> | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE] nf-hipac v0.8 released |
| |
Hi Pádraig
You wrote: > I was testing with 64 byte packets (so around 190Kpps). e100 cards at > least have a handy mode for continually sending a packet as fast as > possible. Also you can use more than one interface.
Yes, that's true. When we did the performance tests we had in mind to compare the worst case behaviour of nf-hipac and iptables. Therefore we designed a ruleset which models the worst case for both iptables and nf-hipac. Of course, the test environment could have been tuned a lot more, e.g. udp instead of tcp, FORWARD chain instead of INPUT, tuned network parameters, more interfaces etc.
Anyway, we prefer independent, more sophisticated performance tests.
>>> # ./readprofile -m /boot/System.map | sort -nr | head -30 >>> 6779 total 0.0047 >>> 4441 default_idle 69.3906 >>> 787 handle_IRQ_event 7.0268 >>> 589 ip_packet_match 1.6733 >>> 433 ipt_do_table 0.6294 >>> 106 eth_type_trans 0.5521 >>> [...] > > Confused me too. The system would lock up and start dropping > packets after 125 rules. I.E. it would linearly degrade > as more rules were added. I'm guessing there is a fixed > interrupt overhead that is accounted for > by default_idle?
Hm, but once the system starts to drop packets ip_packet_match and ipt_do_table start to dominate the profile, don't they?
Regards,
+-----------------------+----------------------+ | Michael Bellion | Thomas Heinz | | <mbellion@hipac.org> | <creatix@hipac.org> | +-----------------------+----------------------+
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |