From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [RFC] ctnetlink events drop benchmark Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:36:10 +0200 Message-ID: <4490571A.5070102@trash.net> References: <448ED2DD.30100@netfilter.org> <44901551.8080400@trash.net> <44903BA5.4030405@netfilter.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Harald Welte , Netfilter Development Mailinglist , Jozsef Kadlecsik Return-path: To: Pablo Neira Ayuso In-Reply-To: <44903BA5.4030405@netfilter.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > Patrick McHardy wrote: > >>> http://people.netfilter.org/pablo/ctnetlink/events.eps >> >> >> Does "events" mean events/s? > > > No, sorry, it seems that the graph is definitely misleading :(. Have a > look at http://people.netfilter.org/pablo/ctnetlink/107520.txt I can't seem to find the number of drops in that table, which I thought this test was all about :) I did some plotting with the numbers myself, comparing (1):(2)/(1) with (1):(3)/(1) (actually / 6.353 to scale the initial UPDATE value down to NEW) shows that UPDATE events scale much more linear than NEW events, which could either mean they get dropped more for some reason or that the connections had a higher number of packets in the runs with more connections (possibly because of more retransmissions). I think we need the number of packets per connection to make sense out of the data.