| To: | Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | "John S. Denker" <jsd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 10 Jun 2003 07:58:33 -0400 |
| Cc: | Jamal Hadi <hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ralph+d@xxxxxxxxx, CIT/Paul <xerox@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Simon Kirby'" <sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'David S. Miller'" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, "fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0306101432530.21247-100000@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0306101432530.21247-100000@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030323 |
On 06/10/2003 07:41 AM, Pekka Savola wrote: Typical packet is around 500 bytesaverage.Not sure that's really the case. I have the impression the traffic is basically something like:- close to 1500 bytes (data transfers) - between 40-100 bytes (TCP acks, simple UDP requests, etc.) - something in between It helps to take a more sophisticated view of things. In typical networks: Most of the packet-count is to be found in small packets. Most of the byte-count is to be found in large packets. Some things (e.g. routing) depend mainly on the packet-count. Other things (e.g. encryption, layer-1 hardware requirements, memory bandwidth usage, ISP contracts) are sensitive to the byte-count. We shouldn't optimize one at the expense of the other. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, chas williams |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Route cache performance under stress, Jamal Hadi |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: Route cache performance under stress, Pekka Savola |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Jamal Hadi |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |