So, The only people getting a google fiber connection *today* live in Provo, UT or Kansas City.
Google Funer is being built out in Austin, but won't be available until early 2015. My neighborhood will get it in the second pass, but I have a Grande 1Gbps/1Gbps connection to my house today, and Grande terminates in the data center next to pfSense World HQ. (We have a 10Gbps fiber connection to our cabinet there.) So I have a <10ms RTT 1Gbps path from home to work, today. In the next couple months, I'll have two. :-) Neither pfSense or FreeBSD will forward at 1.488Mpps on a C2758 today, but running the l3fwd app from DPDK on a 2 core C2758 CPU fitted with a dual port 10Gbps card will run at 14.88Mpps. https://github.com/Pktgen/Pktgen-DPDK/tree/master/dpdk/examples/l3fwd (And it's trivial to make 1.488 happen in the igb ports. Don't go there.) A simple bridge over netmap will yield the same result. (With pkt-gen running on either side.) So the problem is not (as you assert) in the hardware, but rather, in the FreeBSD (and, honestly Linux too) stack(s). But I've already explained that we're working on it. -- Jim > On Oct 17, 2014, at 5:54 PM, compdoc <[email protected]> wrote: > > I wanted to add one more thing. Maybe this will help avoid future > misunderstandings... > > Ulrik Lunddahl asked: > > "Will A SMB without L3 capable switches, that needs routing between 3-4 > > local subnets (LAN, SERVERS, WIRELESS/GUEST, OTHER/DMZ) as close to > > wirespeed as possible, be happy with a C2758. ?" > > Now, I realize that the vast majority of users and businesses in the world > don’t need a wirespeed router, and they have no idea what one is. Their > internet connections just aren't fast enough to require one, and they don’t > use them internally. > > The fact that Ulrik was asking this question means that he not only knows > what one is, but he has a specific requirement. > > I've seen others asking this same question on IRC but with a different > requirement: they were getting Google Fiber connections and they knew enough > to want a server powerful enough to take full advantage of the connection. > One guy I saw chose a system with fairly expensive dual Xeon cpus. I thought > he was crazy. > > Their questions made me curious, and I decided to see just which hardware I > had on hand could reach gigabit line-rates. (pkt-gen measures this bandwidth > as 714.23 Mbps (raw 999.92 Mbps), at 1.488Mpps) > > I was surprised at the results. Nics connected to the PCI bus were dogs. Nics > connected to the PCI-e bus were lots faster, and some could reach 1.488Mpps. > Also, nics with 4 pci-e lanes were faster than nics with 1 pci-e lane. > > Furthermore, I found that to forward packets at 1.488Mpps requires not only a > fast NIC, but also a cpu that was capable of pushing traffic through that > fast. > > The only cpus I had on hand there were capable, was an Intel i5, and a newly > released Amd Kaveri APU. (with Steamroller cores) > > Anyway, Ulrik asked if he'd be happy with a C2758, and I had read on the > BSD-RP site that the C2758 board they were testing wasn’t capable of > 1.488Mpps. It was about half that, even though it had Intel based nics. > > And while that’s still blazing fast, I felt it might not be fast enough for > the knowledgeable people asking these questions. > > It would be a shame for anyone to buy something so expensive and expecting > certain results, and not getting them. > > Even a cheap 5 port gigabit switch can forward traffic at 1.488Mpps, so if > the devices sold by pfSense and elsewhere are capable of full wirespeed, then > those devices would be an excellent buy. > > More so, because of the tuned software and support they'd be getting along > with it. > > compdoc > > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
_______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
