From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Feizhou <feizhou@linuxmail.org>
Subject: Re: NAT performance
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 19:52:31 +0800
Message-ID: <428494FF.9020707@linuxmail.org>
References: <80E06785-6636-4481-ABD1-6C6C28D52629@adelux.fr>	<4283EEB7.7010207@riverviewtech.net>	<02A7CEB4-AD81-4D92-BD1A-A2A5EB00AFF9@adelux.fr>	<Pine.LNX.4.60.0505130423320.5558@darkstar.sysinfo.com>	<A1364254-5C3D-48E2-A68C-2445EBA486D1@adelux.fr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0505131038510.2119@blackhole.kfki.hu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0505131038510.2119@blackhole.kfki.hu>
List-Id: <netfilter.vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter>,
	<mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: </pipermail/netfilter>
List-Post: <mailto:netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter>,
	<mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org

Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005, Christophe SUIRE wrote:
> 
> 
>>This not a problem with the network card, because when i do the test
>>with only firewall routing i have a total bandwidth used near to
>>500Mbit/s.
>>But when i add an SNAT translation for each network (10) the total
>>bandwidth used is near 170Mbit/s.
>>So why this important difference without an with NAT ??
> 
> 
> NAT *is* expensive. Have a look at the paper on netfilter performance
> tests and comparisons at http://people.netfilter.org/kadlec/nftest.pdf

the ip_conntrack module sucks. Lovely cpu chewer.