| To: | gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 22 May 2003 17:55:59 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1053608586.9475.60.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20030522.034058.71558626.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030522114438.GD2961@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1053608586.9475.60.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Martin Josefsson <gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 22 May 2003 15:03:07 +0200
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?
300,000 * sizeof(struct fib_node)
the second term is:
(2 * sizeof_pointer_on_this_architecture) + /* 8 or 16 bytes */
sizeof(u32) + /* 4 bytes */
4 * sizeof(u8)) /* 4 bytes */
So that's 16 bytes on 32-bit systems, and 24 bytes on 64-bit systems.
Therefore 300,000 routes take up 4.8MB on 32-bit systems and 7.2MB
on 64-bit ones.
I cannot fathom a way to make these any smaller :-)
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] post-sysfs netdev cleanup, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Anyone having problem modify incoming IP packets at NetFilter Hoo k Module PREROUTING?, Wai Yim |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Martin Josefsson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |