From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Kristian Evensen <kristrev@simula.no>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Performance hit with IP-tunnels
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:06:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1269256004.3029.21.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000301cac9a8$dcd53750$967fa5f0$@no>
Le lundi 22 mars 2010 à 11:17 +0100, Kristian Evensen a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I am currently comparing different IP-tunneling protocols/implementations,
> and have stumbled upon something I am not able to explain. Regardless of
> which tunneling technology I use, the latency increases with a couple of 10s
> of ms and I see a significant degradation of throughput (compared to when no
> tunnels are used). The only exception is IP-in-IP, where I get similar
> performance with and without tunnels, but it does unfortunately not work in
> my scenario.
>
> First, I thought this was caused by the different tunneling software, but
> after measuring the processing time of the applications (xl2tp and
> pptp-client) and when the packets are seen by the different iptables chains
> (using LOG), these delays seem to be acceptable. However, one delay sticks
> out. After the packet has been decapsulated and fed to PPP, it takes a
> "long" time before it is seen again. My question is, can PPP be the cause of
> the higher latency and lower throughput?
>
> Similar observations are made at both ends of the tunnel.
A soon as a round trip on a user process is requested to handle a
packet, you can have delay because of scheduling constraints.
You could try latencytop and check if something strange raises, 10 ms
seems excessive.
IP-TIP tunnels dont use a user space program, they are immune to
scheduler latencies.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-22 11:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-22 10:17 Performance hit with IP-tunnels Kristian Evensen
2010-03-22 11:06 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1269256004.3029.21.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=kristrev@simula.no \
--cc=linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox