| To: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 09 Jun 2003 06:22:17 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | xerox@xxxxxxxxxx, sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030609091907.Y34702@shell.cyberus.ca> |
| References: | <20030609080430.I34540@shell.cyberus.ca> <20030609.053218.54202815.davem@redhat.com> <20030609091907.Y34702@shell.cyberus.ca> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Jamal Hadi <hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:22:11 -0400 (EDT) I dont think youll see much benefit with 1 or 2 entries. I was thinking more along the lines of people with over 100K entries total; You simply don't want the chains to get that long. In my experience, even with prefetching tricks, past 2 or 3 entry deep hash chains you run into serious problems. TCP has the same issue BTW, in fact DoS-like behavior is the common thing there. Every time you create a new TCP connection on a server it's exactly like a routing cache miss. Let me run with this and get back to you. Ok. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Jamal Hadi |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Ralph Doncaster |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Jamal Hadi |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |