From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Kamraan Nasim <knasim-LfGgLkH2qHaTtA8H5PvdGFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Load-balancing position field in DPDK load_balancer
 sample app vs. Hash table
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:29:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPrTskioYqu_aad7EeepyuYb-9wDZWDOWXQpdCrD5Yofom__vA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Yuanzhang Hu <YHu-LfGgLkH2qHaTtA8H5PvdGFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
To: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>

Hello,

So i've borrowed some code from the DPDK Load balancer sample application,
specifically the load balancing position(byte 29th) to determine which
worker lcore to forward the packet to.

The idea is that flow affinity should be maintained and all packets from
the same flow would have the same checksum/5-tuple value

worker_id = packet[load_balancing_field] % n_workers

Question is that how reliable is this load balancing position? I am tempted
to use Hash tables but I think this position based mechanism may be faster.

How have people's experience with this been in general?


--Kam