From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: Questions about your dual Opteron packetfiltering tests Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:23:09 -0700 Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20040911182309.26bb9d2d.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20040716015152.GA29337@soohrt.org> <20040716131829.GC2214@obroa-skai.de.gnumonks.org> <20040906205653.GA4626@soohrt.org> <20040907084151.GG16651@obroa-skai.de.gnumonks.org> <20040910140617.GA4314@soohrt.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: laforge@netfilter.org, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, laforge@gnumonks.org Return-path: To: Karsten Desler In-Reply-To: <20040910140617.GA4314@soohrt.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:06:17 +0200 Karsten Desler wrote: > > never ever enable rp_filter, that makes a huge difference. rp_filter is > > not even recommended as default, and probably Debian is the only > > distribution doing that mistake (read netdev archives on this). > > Ok, I've disabled rp_filter and added rp_filter-like iptables > rules, doesn't make much (any?) difference though. Please only disable rp_filter, then test. You're making it difficult to determine the source of the bad performance if you add a new set of overhead. So please don't add the new rp_filter-like iptables rules, and test like that.