From: "John A. Sullivan III" <jsullivan@opensourcedevel.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Optimizing tc filters
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 14:58:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1323547080.3159.153.camel@denise.theartistscloset.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1323546064.4016.27.camel@edumazet-laptop>
On Sat, 2011-12-10 at 20:41 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le samedi 10 décembre 2011 à 13:16 -0500, John A. Sullivan III a écrit :
> > Hello, all. Given that there are several ways to direct packets into
> > the appropriate queue, I was wondering which ways are generally more
> > efficient. There seem to be a number of email discussions but nothing
> > authoritative. From those discussions, it would seem that for most
> > corporate usage (as in more traffic than a home user) we would have from
> > most efficient to least efficient:
> >
> > 1) Mark the connection with CONNMARK and us --restore-mark to mark all
> > packets in the connection for classification via an fw filter
> >
> > 2) Use the iptables CLASSIFY target
> >
> > 3) u32 filter
> >
> > 4) Mark individual packets and use an fw filter - one email thread says
> > this is more efficient than #3
> >
> > Is this correct?
>
> Unfortunately CONNTRACK is a bit expensive...
>
> If you control applications, you also can use SO_MARK from them.
>
>
>
OK. Does that mean that #1 is actually #4?
If we are using connection tracking in general to produce a "stateful"
firewall (let's just say we are - I certainly don't want to set off a
debate :) ), does that put #1 back on top as the most efficient since we
are incurring the conntrack overhead anyway or does the CONNMARK target
itself add considerable overhead? Thanks - John
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-10 19:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-10 18:16 Optimizing tc filters John A. Sullivan III
2011-12-10 19:41 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-12-10 19:58 ` John A. Sullivan III [this message]
2011-12-10 20:10 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-12-10 21:01 ` John A. Sullivan III
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=1323547080.3159.153.camel@denise.theartistscloset.com \
--to=jsullivan@opensourcedevel.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--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