Sander Steffann <[email protected]> wrote: > From this it seems that the session table is a performance > bottleneck. Not surprising for a stateful protocol :-) But because > Jool still creates new sessions but starts dropping packets of existing > sessions it also seems that session creation has a higher priority than > packet forwarding. Could it be that session creation locks the session > table, and that the increased size of the table keeps the locks blocked > for longer and longer?
> Q1: any disagreements with my interpretation? ;-)
Sounds right to me.
> Q2: what can we do to improve this?
Lockless/LRU structures?
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Jool-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail-lists.nic.mx/listas/listinfo/jool-list
