According to figure 5 http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/netmap/20110729-rizzo-infocom.pdf there seems to be a significant improvement over netmapcap using native netmap (7500kpps vs 9660kpps), so this sounds like a good idea.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Eddie Kohler <[email protected]> wrote: > Luigi, > > As you know I think this is awesome. > > Should we start working on a direct linkup between Click and netmap, rather > than using libpcap as an intermediate? > > Eddie > > > On 12/16/2011 10:32 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 03:57:00PM +0100, Fabrice Schuler wrote: > >> Hi Eddy, > >> > >> Thanks for your answer. > >> > >> In a first time, we could probably only use kernel mode without > polling, so patchless click could be fine. But on a longer run, I would say > that yes, we will need polling mode. > >> I will try patchless mode in a first time, and will still try to work > to use polling in a second time. > > > > If you are interested in polling because of performance, you should > > really consider using click-userspace with netmap (currently on > > FreeBSD, but linux support is really close now) > > > > http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/netmap/ > > > > In our tests it seems to beat in-kernel click by a factor of 2, > > for I/O intensive tasks (where polling makes the difference). > > > > http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/netmap/20110729-rizzo-infocom.pdf > > > > cheers > > luigi > > _______________________________________________ > > click mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click > _______________________________________________ > click mailing list > [email protected] > https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click > _______________________________________________ click mailing list [email protected] https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
