OS choice for an edge router
cjeker at diehard.n-r-g.com
Sat Sep 8 03:00:33 PDT 2007
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:56:22PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > This is not the case. Flood ping doesn't reach the limit in any
> > way. Have a look at the ping man page and flood ping description.
> Ah yes, I was forgetting about the strict synchrony.
> > Stock FreeBSD 6.2 or 7.0 can easily do 500kpps with good network
> > cards and fastforwarding enabled. On a dual-Opteron 2.6GHz with
> > PCI-X Intel and Broadcom network cards I've done 800kpps in-out.
> What is the throughput when fastforwarding is not used and
> packets go to different destinations? Note that typically
> fastforwarding does not help much on a router since only one
> route is cached.
Wrong. Fastforwarding does not cache routes, it is more a process-to-
completion frowarding bypassing a lot of unneeded code.
> > > Listen to what Louis Mamakos said! Use FreeBSD primarily for
> > > the control plane. May be there are NICs where you can
> > > offload some packet forwarding.... But that is a substantial
> > > change to FreeBSD. Or live with what FreeBSD can do on a
> > > given box.
> > There are no NICs known that can do packet forwarding offload.
> > And neither is there support in FreeBSD for that. You're probably
> > confusing this with checksum offloading or TSO (TCP segmentation
> > offloading) which isn't an issue with packet forwarding at all.
> Indeed. That is why I said "that is a substantial change to
> FreeBSD"! But even offloading checksum can help as the CPU
> has less to do.
Wrong. A router only needs to check and update the IPv4 checksum and doing
that can be done in a few simple instructions. There is no need to look at
the TCP or UDP checksum. So in the end checksum offloading has little
effect on forwarding performance.
More information about the freebsd-net