From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: Route cache performance under stress Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 23:46:24 -0700 (PDT) Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20030519.234624.123976229.davem@redhat.com> References: <20030519212209.P39592@shell.cyberus.ca> <20030519.182410.10302536.davem@redhat.com> <20030519220409.V39658@shell.cyberus.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: sim@netnation.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: hadi@shell.cyberus.ca In-Reply-To: <20030519220409.V39658@shell.cyberus.ca> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Jamal Hadi Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 22:13:33 -0400 (EDT) I dont think the hashes are similar - its the effect into the slow path. I was told by someone who tested this on a priicey CISCO that they simply die unless capable of a feature called CEF. I found a description of this thing on Cisco's web site. Amusingly it seems to contradict itself, it says that the CEF FIB is fully populated and has a 1-to-1 correspondance to the routing table yet it says that the first access to some destination is what creates CEF entries. Go figure! :-)