netdev - Re: L2 network namespace benchmarking (resend with Service Demand)

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-ID: <46162CC8.7080708@bull.net>
Date:	Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:19:36 +0200
From:	Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: L2 network namespace benchmarking (resend with Service Demand)

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> as suggested Rick, I added the Service Demand results to the matrix.
> 
> A couple of random thoughts in trying to understand the numbers you are
> seeing.
> 
> - Checksum offloading?
> 
>   You have noted that with the bridge netfilter support disabled you
>   are still seeing additional checksum overhead.  Just like you are
>   seeing in the routing case.
> 
>   Is it possible the problem is simply that etun doesn't support
>   checksum offloading, while your normal test hardware does?

Looks like you are 100% correct.
I feel a bit stupid I didn't think about this "small" difference 
between real NIC and etun.

If I turn off checksum offloading on my physical NIC, the checksum 
"overhead" (load) measured by oprofile is about the same in both case: 
when running netperf through a real NIC or through an etun tunnel first.

Benjamin

> - Tagged VLANs?
>   
>   Currently you have tested bridging and routing to get the packets to
>   a network namespace.  Could you test tagged vlans?
> 
>   I'm just curious if we have anything in the network stack today that
>   will multiplex a NIC without measurable overhead.
> 
> - Without NETNS?
> 
>   We should probably see if we can setup the same configuration we are
>   testing without network namespaces (just multiple interfaces on the
>   same machine) and see if we can still measure the same overhead.
>   Just to confirm the overhead is not a network namespace related
>   thing.
> 
>   I know we can configure the same case with bridging and I am fairly
>   confident that we will see the same overhead without network
>   namespaces.
> 
>   Of the top of my head I am insufficiently clever to think how we
>   could configure the routing case without network namespaces,
>   although we might be able to force it and if so it would be
>   interesting to measure.
> 
> I will work to get the etun setup races fixed and to fix whatever
> obvious feature deficiencies it has (like no configurable MTU support)
> and see if I can get that pushed upstream.  That should make it easier
> for other people to reproduce what we are seeing.
> 
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
> 

-- 
B e n j a m i n   T h e r y  - BULL/DT/Open Software R&D

    http://www.bull.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

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