| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20110216.192751.104051014.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:27:51 -0800 (PST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: therbert@...gle.com Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: state of rtcache removal... From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:59:35 -0800 > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:08 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote: >> >> So I've been testing out the routing cache removal patch to see >> what the impact is on performance. >> > Interesting results. > > I assume that this test is purposely using sento on a connected socket > to force sendmsg to go through the route lookup :-), so this is > showing what the benefits of rtcache are is when cache hit rate is > 100%. For comparison, it might interesting to see what the > performance is when rate is < 100%. For instance, we often see hit > rates < 20% on front end servers. This could be done flooding to > random addresses in 10/8 or even 0/0... I'm hoping that without the > rtcache performance actually improves in that case! We know that the performance will be higher in the "closer to %0" situation, ie. for DoS workloads. Because all of the route cache management overhead goes away. Anyways I'm working on some ideas to make the high hit rate case perform amicably again. -- 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