> Thanks for your clarification. We've also conducted some tests with
> bridging firewall functionality, and we're very pleased with nf-hipac's
> performance! Results below.
Great, thanks a lot. Your tests are very interesting for us as we haven't done
any gigabit or SMP tests yet.
> In the measurements, tests were run through a bridging Linux firewall,
> with a netperf UDP stream of 1450 byte packets (launched from a different
> computer connected with gigabit ethernet), with a varying amount of
> filtering rules checks for each packet.
> I don't have the specs of the Linux PC hardware handy, but I recall
> they're *very* highend dual-P4's, like 2.4Ghz, very fast PCI bus, etc.
Since real world network traffic always consists of a lot of different sized
packets taking maximum sized packets is very euphemistic. 1450 byte packets
at 950 Mbit/s correspond to approx. 80,000 packets/sec.
We are really interested in how our algorithm performs at higher packet rates.
Our performance tests are based on 100 Mbit hardware so we coudn't test with
more than approx. 80,000 packets/sec even with minimum sized packets. At this
packet rate we were hardly able to drive the algorithm to its limit, even
with more than 25000 rules involved (and our test system was 1.3 GHz
uniprocessor).
We'd appreciate it very much if you could run additional tests with smaller
packet sizes (including minimum packet size). This way we can get an idea of
whether our SMP optimizations work and whether our algorithm in general would
benefit from further fine tuning.
Regards
+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Michael Bellion | Thomas Heinz |
| <mbellion@hipac.org> | <creatix@hipac.org> |
+-----------------------+----------------------+
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/