netdev - Re: [RFC VLAN 00/10]: VLAN netlink support try 2

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]

Message-ID: <4665C2CE.4050504@candelatech.com>
Date:	Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:08:46 -0700
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC VLAN 00/10]: VLAN netlink support try 2

Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Ben Greear wrote:
>> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>>> The last VLAN patchset was outdated, sorry about the mixup. These are the
>>> correct patches. The iproute patch I posted was correct, so no repost of
>>> that one.
>>>
>>>   
>> Is there any significant performance penalty in creating VLANs using
>> these patches?
>>
>> If you have a test station handy, could you let us know what 'time'
>> shows for a script
>> creating 4000 VLANs with the old vconfig/ioctl method v/s this new method?
> 
> 
> Not significantly more, for 1000 VLANs I get:
> 
> ip link add:
> 
> real    0m22.836s
> user    0m0.100s
> sys     0m5.850s
> 
> vconfig add:
> 
> real    0m19.739s
> user    0m0.090s
> sys     0m3.600s

Thanks for doing the tests.  That small performance drop seems
fine to me.

> ip -b (batch add):
> 
> real    0m5.239s
> user    0m0.280s
> sys     0m3.480s

And that looks quite interesting!

Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.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