From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Or Gerlitz Subject: bridge vs macvlan performance (was: some veth related issues) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:41:54 +0300 Message-ID: <4A791BA2.1040503@voltaire.com> References: <4A785824.2030500@candelatech.com> <4A790D24.9000008@voltaire.com> <4A790F35.60204@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Vytautas Valancius , Sapan Bhatia , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Ben Greear , Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from fwil.voltaire.com ([193.47.165.2]:41858 "EHLO exil.voltaire.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933150AbZHEFmD (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A790F35.60204@candelatech.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Ben Greear wrote: > Well, it seems we could and should fix veth to work, but it will have > to do equivalent work of copying an skb most likely, so either way > you'll probably get a big performance hit. Using the same pktgen script (i.e with clone=0) I see that a veth-->bridge-->veth configuration gives about 400K PPS forwarding performance where macvlan-->veth-->macvlan gives 680K PPS (again, I made sure that the bridge has applied learning before I start the test). Basically, both the bridge and macvlan use hash on the destination mac in order to know to which device forward the packet, is there anything in the bridge logic that can explain the gap? It there something which isn't really apples-to-apples in this comparison? Or.