Re: Patches solving the same issue!?

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Thomas Jacob wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 14:42 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> Please work this out among yourselves. I think we should just pick
>> the faster one since both don't look very intrusive.
> 
> Well, Jesper's version doesn't build any extra data-structures,
> so you save time&space there, and the offsets stuff is really
> only needed once, so the chain_index rebuilding penalty
> doesn't play a role.
> 
> And since about 2/3s of time it takes to load my 50k Chains now
> is system time, it's probably irrelevant whether
>  0 + O(n * (log(n/40)+40)) is sometimes larger than O(n+n/1024) +
> O(log(n)).
> 
> Mine vs. Jesper's:
> 
> iptables-restore  (50k chains, 120k rules), average for 10 runs:
> 
> User: 2.558 s - System: 8.672 s - Total : 11.222 s
> vs
> User: 2.622 s - System: 8.520 s - Total : 11.140 s
> 
> 
> iptables -vnL SOMECHAIN (2 entries, with the above ruleset in kernel),
>  average for 20 runs
> 
> User: .094 s - System: .363 s - Total : .455 s
> vs
> User: .085 s - System: .389 s - Total : .472 s
> 
> Those numbers are all within the standard deviations of each other,
> so there is no difference for practical purposes, I think :-)
> 
> I would use Jesper's patch.

OK, thanks for the numbers and sorting this out so peacefully :)