[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx: Route cache performance under stress]

To: Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx: Route cache performance under stress]
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 11:14:50 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <87n0j3ltf0.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20030405165016.GA32361@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030405134350.N68419@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <873ckwftal.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030405180607.P68419@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87n0j3ltf0.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Florian Weimer wrote:

> > You may find that aggressive gc is one of your problems infact.
> I don't think so.  During a DoS attack with spoofed source addresses,
> the dst cache quickly fills up, and the overwhelming majority of the
> entries is useless (they won't be used again).  The slabinfo line
> looks like this:
> ip_dst_cache      116477 131080    192 6554 6554    1
> There are only 8192 hash buckets on this system, and if we assume that
> the entries are uniformly distributed over the buckets (which is not
> necessarily true), the code in ip_route_input() has to look at 14 or
> 15 cache entries before the miss is detected.  I can hardly see how
> this is efficient.

cat /proc/net/rt_cache_stat
Should give us a lot more info.

> > I dont see the correlation of syn attacks and the dst cache in your
> > description. Can you collect some profiles?
> On the machine above, the dst cache has 2**17 entries.  Imagine what
> happens if all these entries are chained to the same bucket, and the
> chain has to be traversed for each packet.

Yes, in that (worse case) scenario, you have two effects one of walking a
lot of elements before finding you have a cache miss and then being forced
into a slow path after all that pain. The cache miss is not as
expensive compared to the slow path execution. Youd have to walk a lot
entries to get the same effect as being forced one time into slow path.
Again, this is my qualm with the papers general pov.

> > Our data was collected on a real ISP which hosts a lot of web
> > servers and was being constantly DOSed. I dont think you can get
> > more real world than that.
> Did you look at a router, or at a host?

As a router, but the hash compute shouldnt matter.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>