netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Linux Routing Performance Update

To: "Florian Weimer" <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Glen Turner" <glen.turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Linux Routing Performance Update
From: "Guthrie, Jeremy" <jeremy.guthrie@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:21:39 -0600
Cc: "Robert Olsson" <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcUGM2nQFU3n7yOAQPWLeYFCK0stFgAHX02S
Thread-topic: Linux Routing Performance Update
-----Original Message-----
From: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Florian Weimer
Sent: Sat 1/29/2005 12:50 PM
To: Glen Turner
Cc: Robert Olsson; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Linux Routing Performance Update
 
* Glen Turner:

>> Finally time for some more testing with a somewhat upgraded equipment.
>
> Thanks very much for the interesting results.

Indeed.

> I'm sure other network engineers have experienced software routers where
> the pps has dramatically slowed down upon reasonable ACLs and queuing
> (Cisco 7500, etc),

Cisco 7500 with proper configuration would do quite well in this test,
too, even with ACLs.  Only if you have more than a few thousand new
flows per second, things start to look rather bleak.  (Forwarding
decisions are performed once per flow on this platform.)
-----------

Depends if you are using standard route caching or Cisco Express Forwarding.  
The 7500s should support dCEF if memory strikes me correctly.  In any case, 
when CEF is available it should be used.  Comparing any Cisco router w/o CEF or 
MLS wouldn't exactly be a fair comparison.  MLS will care about new flows but 
CEF will not.

> so some results with netfilter and tc running would be appreciated,
> as would tests for any packet re-ordering in output flows.

I'd also like to see tests with random source/destination
combinations, just to keep things in perspective. 8-)




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>