| To: | Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | Simon Kirby <sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 8 Jun 2003 16:49:26 -0700 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <874r30r9z2.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <87wuge59w2.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030526.233211.54217447.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <87he70re62.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030608.050500.28795668.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <874r30r9z2.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 03:10:25PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Further parameters which could be tweaked is the kind of adjacency > information (where to store the L2 information, whether to include the > prefix length in the adjacency record etc.). What is the problem with the current approach? Does the overhead come from having to iterate through the hashes for each prefix? Simon- [ Simon Kirby ][ Network Operations ] [ sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ][ NetNation Communications Inc. ] [ Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. ] |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Pekka Savola |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Route cache performance under stress, CIT/Paul |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Florian Weimer |
| Next by Thread: | RE: Route cache performance under stress, CIT/Paul |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |