From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB2A6C433E3 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 12:42:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9769207DD for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 12:42:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727980AbgFVMmN (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2020 08:42:13 -0400 Received: from correo.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:40866 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728143AbgFVMmM (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2020 08:42:12 -0400 Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (unknown [192.168.2.11]) by mail.us.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id A826BB6329 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:42:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A958DA78D for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:42:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix, from userid 99) id 8FE2EDA78C; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:42:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E29DA78E; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:42:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 192.168.1.97 (192.168.1.97) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int); Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:42:08 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int) Received: from us.es (unknown [90.77.255.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: 1984lsi) by entrada.int (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05D9E42EF4E1; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:42:07 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:42:07 +0200 X-SMTPAUTHUS: auth mail.us.es From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Phil Sutter , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: iptables user space performance benchmarks published Message-ID: <20200622124207.GA25671@salvia> References: <20200619141157.GU23632@orbyte.nwl.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200619141157.GU23632@orbyte.nwl.cc> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Hi Phil, On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 04:11:57PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > Hi Pablo, > > I remember you once asked for the benchmark scripts I used to compare > performance of iptables-nft with -legacy in terms of command overhead > and caching, as detailed in a blog[1] I wrote about it. I meanwhile > managed to polish the scripts a bit and push them into a public repo, > accessible here[2]. I'm not sure whether they are useful for regular > runs (or even CI) as a single run takes a few hours and parallel use > likely kills result precision. So what is the _technical_ incentive for using the iptables blob interface (a.k.a. legacy) these days then? The iptables-nft frontend is transparent and it outperforms the legacy code for dynamic rulesets. Thanks. > [1] https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2020/04/27/optimizing-iptables-nft-large-ruleset-performance-in-user-space/ > [2] http://nwl.cc/cgi-bin/git/gitweb.cgi?p=ipt-sbs-bench.git;a=summary