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