netdev - Re: ipsec impact on performance

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: <565DE446.2070609@hpe.com>
Date:	Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:17:42 -0800
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@....com>
To:	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ipsec impact on performance

On 12/01/2015 09:59 AM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
> But these are all still relatively small things - tweaking them
> doesnt get me significantly past the 3 Gbps limit. Any suggestions
> on how to make this budge (or design criticism of the patch) would
> be welcome.

What do the perf profiles show?  Presumably, loss of TSO/GSO means an 
increase in the per-packet costs, but if the ipsec path significantly 
increases the per-byte costs...

Short of a perf profile, I suppose one way to probe for per-packet 
versus per-byte would be to up the MTU.  That should reduce the 
per-packet costs while keeping the per-byte roughly the same.

You could also compare the likes of a single-byte netperf TCP_RR test 
between ipsec enabled and not to get an idea of the basic path length 
differences without TSO/GSO/whatnot muddying the waters.

happy benchmarking,

rick jones
--
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