netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] tou: Transports over UDP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:10:23 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@....com>
To:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] tou: Transports over UDP - part I

On 06/16/2016 10:51 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:

> Note that #1 is really about running a transport stack in userspace
> applications in clients, not necessarily servers. For servers we
> intend to modified the kernel stack in order to leverage existing
> implementation for building scalable serves (hence these patches).

Only if there is a v2 for other reasons...  I assume that was meant to 
be "scalable servers."

> Tested: Various cases of TOU with IPv4, IPv6 using TCP_STREAM and
> TCP_RR. Also, tested IPIP for comparing TOU encapsulation to IP
> tunneling.
>
>      - IPv6 native
>        1 TCP_STREAM
> 	8394 tps

TPS for TCP_STREAM?  Is that Mbit/s?

>        200 TCP_RR
> 	1726825 tps
> 	100/177/361 90/95/99% latencies

To enhance the already good comprehensiveness of the numbers, a 1 TCP_RR 
showing the effect on latency rather than aggregate PPS would be 
goodness, as would a comparison of the service demands of the different 
single-stream results.

CPU and NIC models would provide excellent context for the numbers.

happy benchmarking,

rick jones