From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161145AbWF0QKu (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:10:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161143AbWF0QKu (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:10:50 -0400 Received: from ns2.lanforge.com ([66.165.47.211]:63905 "EHLO ns2.lanforge.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161141AbWF0QKs (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:10:48 -0400 Message-ID: <44A157CA.70204@candelatech.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 09:07:38 -0700 From: Ben Greear Organization: Candela Technologies User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Greear CC: Herbert Poetzl , "Eric W. Biederman" , Daniel Lezcano , Andrey Savochkin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, serue@us.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, clg@fr.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , dev@sw.ru, devel@openvz.org, sam@vilain.net, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, Alexey Kuznetsov Subject: Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view References: <20060609210202.215291000@localhost.localdomain> <20060609210625.144158000@localhost.localdomain> <20060626134711.A28729@castle.nmd.msu.ru> <449FF5A0.2000403@fr.ibm.com> <20060626192751.A989@castle.nmd.msu.ru> <44A00215.2040608@fr.ibm.com> <20060626183649.GB3368@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <44A05BFD.6030402@candelatech.com> <20060626225440.GA7425@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <44A068E7.6080403@candelatech.com> In-Reply-To: <44A068E7.6080403@candelatech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ben Greear wrote: > Herbert Poetzl wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 03:13:17PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > > >> yes, that sounds good to me, any numbers how that >> affects networking in general (performance wise and >> memory wise, i.e. caches and hashes) ... > > > I'll run some tests later today. Based on my previous tests, > I don't remember any significant overhead. Here's a quick benchmark using my redirect devices (RDD). Each RDD comes in a pair...when you tx on one, the pkt is rx'd on the peer. The idea is that it is exactly like two physical ethernet interfaces connected by a cross-over cable. My test system is a 64-bit dual-core Intel system, 3.013 Ghz processor with 1GB RAM. Fairly standard stuff..it's one of the Shuttle XPC systems. Kernel is 2.6.16.16 (64-bit). Test setup is: rdd1 -- rdd2 [bridge] rdd3 -- rdd4 I am using my proprietary module for the bridge logic...and the default bridge should be at least this fast. I am injecting 1514 byte packets on rdd1 and rdd4 with pktgen (bi-directional flow). My pktgen is also receiving the pkts and gathering stats. This setup sustains 1.7Gbps of generated and received traffic between rdd1 and rdd4. Running only the [bridge] between two 10/100/1000 ports on an Intel PCI-E NIC will sustain about 870Mbps (bi-directional) on this system, so the virtual devices are quite efficient, as suspected. I have not yet had time to benchmark the mac-vlans...hopefully later today. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com