From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: [RFC VLAN 00/10]: VLAN netlink support try 2 Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:08:46 -0700 Message-ID: <4665C2CE.4050504@candelatech.com> References: <20070605143650.23717.91261.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <46658E84.1090301@candelatech.com> <4665AB57.7030605@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from ns2.lanforge.com ([66.165.47.211]:57310 "EHLO ns2.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757201AbXFEUIy (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2007 16:08:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4665AB57.7030605@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Patrick McHardy wrote: > Ben Greear wrote: >> Patrick McHardy wrote: >> >>> The last VLAN patchset was outdated, sorry about the mixup. These are the >>> correct patches. The iproute patch I posted was correct, so no repost of >>> that one. >>> >>> >> Is there any significant performance penalty in creating VLANs using >> these patches? >> >> If you have a test station handy, could you let us know what 'time' >> shows for a script >> creating 4000 VLANs with the old vconfig/ioctl method v/s this new method? > > > Not significantly more, for 1000 VLANs I get: > > ip link add: > > real 0m22.836s > user 0m0.100s > sys 0m5.850s > > vconfig add: > > real 0m19.739s > user 0m0.090s > sys 0m3.600s Thanks for doing the tests. That small performance drop seems fine to me. > ip -b (batch add): > > real 0m5.239s > user 0m0.280s > sys 0m3.480s And that looks quite interesting! Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com