From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: Linux IP forwarding performance benchmarks Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2012 10:44:18 -0800 Message-ID: <50C38A82.5050506@candelatech.com> References: <1219381354968093@web3d.yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Oleg Arkhangelsky Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:40243 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965492Ab2LHSoU (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Dec 2012 13:44:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1219381354968093@web3d.yandex.ru> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/08/2012 04:01 AM, Oleg Arkhangelsky wrote: > Hello, > > Does anyone have some Linux IP forwarding performance > benchmarks on Nehalem Xeon platform versus Sandy > Bridge Xeon E5? Intel DDIO looks pretty tasty and should > give significant performance boost (at least in theory) > but currently we doesn't have this hardware at hand to > test so asking here. Well, I don't have forwarding numbers, but using a modified pktgen, we can send and receive about 800,000 packets per second on each of 4 10G NICs in our E5 test system. Our modified pktgen is probably slower than the upstream, as it has a bunch of rx logic in it as well... And, for our network emulator module (like a bridge, mostly), we can get 7-9.8Gbps bi-directional throughput, depending on some issues due to IRQ pinning and the spread among the rx-queues, it seems. Thanks, Ben > > Thank you! > -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com