| To: | Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance |
| From: | Simon Kirby <sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 7 Sep 2005 09:57:58 -0700 |
| Cc: | Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <17183.6655.977975.249491@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050824000158.GA8137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050825181111.GB14336@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050825200543.GA6612@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050825212211.GA23384@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050826115520.GA12351@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <17167.29239.469711.847951@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050906235700.GA31820@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <17182.64751.340488.996748@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050907162854.GB24735@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <17183.6655.977975.249491@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.9i |
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:49:03PM +0200, Robert Olsson wrote: > It's called trade-off's :) rDoS is hardly nomal case? But maybe it's time > to compare routing via route hash vs FIB lookup directly again now when > we have RCU with some FIB lookup's too. I haven't even filled the route tables yet. I've just been testing with a bog standard table (three /24s and one /0). Simon- |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance, Simon Kirby |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Route cache performance, Robert Olsson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance, Robert Olsson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance, Alexey Kuznetsov |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |