| To: | Simon Kirby <sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | Martin Josefsson <gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 22 May 2003 15:03:07 +0200 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030522114438.GD2961@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | |
| References: | <20030520.173607.88482742.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030522084003.GA22613@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030522.015815.91322249.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030522.034058.71558626.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030522114438.GD2961@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 13:44, Simon Kirby wrote: > Nice! I tested with 300,000 routing table entries and there is no > discernable difference in performance from having an empty table. > vmstat shows the same idle time as when the routing table is empty. How much memory does a table that large use? -- /Martin |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Simon Kirby |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Fwd: [ANNOUNCE] Layer-7 Filter for Linux QoS], Ethan Sommer |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Simon Kirby |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |