| To: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: _High_ CPU usage while routing (mostly) small UDP packets |
| From: | Karsten Desler <kdesler@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 7 Dec 2004 03:54:56 +0100 |
| Cc: | Bernd Eckenfels <ecki-news2004-05@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1102387595.1088.48.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| References: | <20041206224107.GA8529@soohrt.org> <E1CbSf8-00047p-00@calista.eckenfels.6bone.ka-ip.net> <20041207002012.GB30674@quickstop.soohrt.org> <1102387595.1088.48.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i |
* jamal wrote: > > Your numbers are very suspect. You may be having other issues in the > box. You should be able to do much higher packet rates even with > iptables compiled in. I know, and I have no idea why I'm not. > Some numbers at: > > http://www.suug.ch/sucon/04/slides/pkt_cls.pdf > > If all you need is std filtering then consider using tc actions. Thanks, I'll look into it. > I do have a suspicion that your problem has to do with your machine > more than it does with Linux. But what could be the reason? I'm really out of ideas. The only thing I can think off is the 66/64 PCI bus and the disadvantageous placement of the PCI cards, but neither should cause a higher CPU usage. If the bus couldn't keep up, I'd get packetloss. - Karsten |
| Previous by Date: | Re: _High_ CPU usage while routing (mostly) small UDP packets, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: _High_ CPU usage while routing (mostly) small UDP packets, jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: _High_ CPU usage while routing (mostly) small UDP packets, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: _High_ CPU usage while routing (mostly) small UDP packets, jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |