| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: limited number if iptable rules on 64bit hosts |
| From: | Bart De Schuymer <bdschuym@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:33:51 +0100 |
| Cc: | Olaf Hering <olh@xxxxxxx>, okir@xxxxxxx, brugolsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050203110049.6b2d9c64.davem@davemloft.net> |
| References: | <20050202133851.GA9680@suse.de> <20050202222516.GA15440@suse.de> <20050202223853.GA29237@ti64.telemetry-investments.com> <20050202225258.GA15563@suse.de> <20050203111939.GI31570@suse.de> <20050203104822.05be3281.davem@davemloft.net> <20050203185928.GA22832@suse.de> <20050203110049.6b2d9c64.davem@davemloft.net> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Op do, 03-02-2005 te 11:00 -0800, schreef David S. Miller: > On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 19:59:28 +0100 > Olaf Hering <olh@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 03, David S. Miller wrote: > > > > > The rule itself is replicated per-cpu as well to keep L2 cache > > > accesses local per cpu on SMP systems. > > > > Andy made this change, which helped on a dual box. > > It might not help for Olaf's 128 cpu box though :-) > > I think reconsider the idea of replicating the rule itself per-cpu. > Also, this thread should have begun with netfilter-devel at least on > the CC:, added. Note that ebtables only has per-cpu counters. I wonder what limits are seen on such systems for ebtables. cheers, Bart |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: limited number if iptable rules on 64bit hosts, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain..., Stephen Hemminger |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: limited number if iptable rules on 64bit hosts, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: limited number if iptable rules on 64bit hosts, Bill Rugolsky Jr. |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |