[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A791DA5.3090202@candelatech.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:50:29 -0700
From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...taire.com>
CC: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Vytautas Valancius <vytautas.valancius@...il.com>,
Sapan Bhatia <sapanb@...princeton.edu>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: bridge vs macvlan performance
Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Ben Greear wrote:
>> Well, it seems we could and should fix veth to work, but it will have
>> to do equivalent work of copying an skb most likely, so either way
>> you'll probably get a big performance hit.
> Using the same pktgen script (i.e with clone=0) I see that a
> veth-->bridge-->veth configuration gives about 400K PPS forwarding
> performance where macvlan-->veth-->macvlan gives 680K PPS (again, I
> made sure that the bridge has applied learning before I start the
> test). Basically, both the bridge and macvlan use hash on the
> destination mac in order to know to which device forward the packet,
> is there anything in the bridge logic that can explain the gap? It
> there something which isn't really apples-to-apples in this comparison?
A VETH has to send to it's peer, so your descriptions are a bit vague.
What are you really configuring? Maybe show us your script or commands
that set up each of these tests?
Ben
>
> Or.
>
> --
> 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
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists