From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: increase the number of routing tables Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:26:25 -0800 Message-ID: <4F26D2C1.7030108@candelatech.com> References: <1327804887.2805.20.camel@edumazet-laptop> <4F24B2E9.3010600@candelatech.com> <20120129.160152.1463516627658543873.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com, simonchennj@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:40452 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751813Ab2A3R0c (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:26:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20120129.160152.1463516627658543873.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/29/2012 01:01 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Ben Greear > Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:46:01 -0800 > >> On 01/28/2012 06:41 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: >>> Its is possible, but probably not scalable. >> >> I've run with a few thousand routing tables and probably 5000 or so >> rules. It seems to run OK.... >> >>> You really should not have too many "ip rule" entries, since they are >>> evaluated linearly. >> >> For every packet, or maybe just until conn-track gets an entry >> for the connection? > > When the routing cache is removed, using a huge number of rules is not > going to be something you want to do any more because the rule table > will be inspected on every route lookup. Well, that sounds like a reason to keep the routing cache around, even if it isn't used by default, perhaps. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com