Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Henning Brauer wrote:
* Daniel Ouellet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-26 08:57]:
Isn't it that all the routing changes anyway, either from BGPd or OSPFd are
both ending in the PF table at the kernel level. That's what I understand
That's a misunderstanding: pf does not route, it's the ip layer code
in the kernel. Hint: routing existed before anybody even though of firewalls.
Big lack of understanding on my part here! Thanks for correcting me!
More brain farts on my part, nothing that a few beer couldn't help I guess.
change and as such the process would be PF doing the work in a linear fashion
making the use of multi core, or multi processor useless in that case, or may
be even negatively impact it?
As Henning said, in some cases interrupt processing on MP machines
might be faster.
Well based on feedback for the Intel quad network card I think, from the
list, using the bsd.mp did reduce the interrupts level as pointed out on
the list before. I thought that may be that was more of a driver issue,
but I guess not and I am sure you guys are right. Most likely a side
effect like Henning said before.
I agree that there might be something I don't understand that may affect this
and that's why I try to see what may change that, but other then small process
doing very little to start with and some changes to routing table because of
flap, the routing itself of moving packets around wouldn't benefit, or may
actually be impair par the scheduling of process no?
I know this is a very remote question, but I am trying to make sure I
understand it right. That's what I thought above anyway, is it right or wrong?
Yes, if the routing daemon is idle you are right. But in practise the
routing daemon will be active, and the impact on performance will be
hard to predict, bcause it is very much dependant on a lot of things.
Sure thing! I am glad I understand it a bit better then yesterday anyway
and hopefully less then tomorrow!
Thanks for your time.
Daniel
