> On Oct 16, 2014, at 2:06 AM, compdoc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I am well-aware of Olivier’s work in this area, as are many in the FreeBSD
> > community.
> > There is no proof, except that which is documented and reproducible. We're
> > doing something like science here.
>
> Hmm, proof. Well, maybe a scientist like yourself can appreciate my concern
> over this direct quote from the BSD Router Project, of which you are so
> well-aware:
>
> "Intel Rangeley: Atom C2758 (8 cores) at 2.4GHz"
> "Embedded Intel i354 4-port gigabit Ethernet"
> "8Gb of RAM"
> "Debugging slow throughput in progress…"
> "With the default value of igb(4) drivers that use all 8 cores, this system
> is not able to received more than 585Kpps (far from the gigabit line-rate
> 1.488Mpps) on one port ?!?!"
> "Last modified: 2014/03/13 20:16 by olivier"
>
As I said before, I am aware of Olivier's work. That you are "concerned" is
understandable, but also immaterial, as it is clear from this thread that your
understanding of the issues, tools(!), terms of art and resolutions is limited.
The concern I have is not your lack of understanding. We all lack knowledge.
It's what comes next that marks the difference between progress and the "crabs
in a bucket" mentality that often impedes progress.
Here, you perform an act commonly known as "I read it on the Internet" (so it
must be true.)
The difference between Olivier's setup and ours (assuming pfsense 2.1.1+), is
tuning. It's well-understood that the default install isn't optimal. We
addressed this earlier in the year.
Since then we've been concentrating more on a proper test infrastructure,
(Conductor), support for AES-GCM mode for IPSec, (with support for AES-NI
acceleration), and measuring the performance of "pf" with the on-chip
performance counters.
The first result of the pf performance work is an improved (at least 9% faster
with 95% confidence) hash function for pf.
A second result (not yet available in pfSense as it requires work from FreeBSD
-HEAD) yields another 25% improvement compared to the stock pf in 10.0/10.1.
Work continues.
> As I said in my original post, I'm know the C2758 is capable according to its
> specs, however buyer beware...
Again with the insult and denigration. Do you own a C2758?
Jim
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
