From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Denys Fedoryschenko Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE]: First release of nftables Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:52:27 +0200 Message-ID: <200903181652.27928.denys@visp.net.lb> References: <20090318112937.675BF13A4B0@koiott.tartu-labor> <49C107AB.1030003@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Meelis Roos , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from hosting.visp.net.lb ([194.146.153.11]:50190 "EHLO hosting.visp.net.lb" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751326AbZCROwT (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:52:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <49C107AB.1030003@trash.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wednesday 18 March 2009 16:39:39 Patrick McHardy wrote: > > On top it has far smaller code and less memory usage as soon as > you have more than one CPU, its lockless, no default counters, > no overhead for unused chains, etc etc. > > When the time has come, I will of course post benchmarks. > Thanks a lot for your code Patrick. I will try as soon as i can. I dont think hash and rbtrees is suboptimal. I have really a lot of situations where i need large set of ip's or ports to be added in similar rule, which is forced to be linear. And if i even build tree manually - it will be really headache to add new hosts. nftables looks very promissing in this case