From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Kirby Subject: Re: Route cache performance under stress Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 16:49:26 -0700 Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030608234926.GA9453@netnation.com> References: <87wuge59w2.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <20030526.233211.54217447.davem@redhat.com> <87he70re62.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <20030608.050500.28795668.davem@redhat.com> <874r30r9z2.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Florian Weimer Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <874r30r9z2.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 03:10:25PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Further parameters which could be tweaked is the kind of adjacency > information (where to store the L2 information, whether to include the > prefix length in the adjacency record etc.). What is the problem with the current approach? Does the overhead come from having to iterate through the hashes for each prefix? Simon- [ Simon Kirby ][ Network Operations ] [ sim@netnation.com ][ NetNation Communications Inc. ] [ Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. ]