| To: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 19 May 2003 23:46:24 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030519220409.V39658@shell.cyberus.ca> |
| References: | <20030519212209.P39592@shell.cyberus.ca> <20030519.182410.10302536.davem@redhat.com> <20030519220409.V39658@shell.cyberus.ca> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Jamal Hadi <hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 22:13:33 -0400 (EDT) I dont think the hashes are similar - its the effect into the slow path. I was told by someone who tested this on a priicey CISCO that they simply die unless capable of a feature called CEF. I found a description of this thing on Cisco's web site. Amusingly it seems to contradict itself, it says that the CEF FIB is fully populated and has a 1-to-1 correspondance to the routing table yet it says that the first access to some destination is what creates CEF entries. Go figure! :-) |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6 IPComp, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] switch comx over to initcalls, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Jamal Hadi |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |