On 10/18/07, Brian A. Seklecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:52:34 +0200 > Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > * Brian A. Seklecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-16 > 23:01]: > > > All: > > > > > > I see that IFCAP_VLAN_MTU is available, but IFCAP_VLAN_HWTAGGING, as > seen > > > in ti(4), is absent in em(4). Version 6.6.6 of em(4) elsewhere is > > > promising TOE (TCP Segment Offload) and already supports a "vlanhwtag" > and > > > "jumbo frames". > > > > > > For VLAN routing security boxes, this would be a big plus for a lot of > > > embedded SBCs that support only integrated Intel NICs. > > > > "this would be a big plus"? > > sez who? > > Says my assumption that unlike TOE, VLAN hardware tagging has been well > accepted and established for some time. But only an objective test can > tell... > > I've been looking for details on an F/OSS L2-L4 Performance Benchmark > System. > > Someone on the lists recently posted test results of tests using IXIA > > http://www.ixiacom.com/ > > I don't know where I'm going to find the time, but I will eventually have > a go at this.
One box with two em interfaces. One 175kpps stream in each direction, 64 byte frame size. Both interfaces with normal config = ~20% idle cpu One interface converted to VLAN trunk with one vlan = ~15% idle cpu No packet loss. Just a 5 minute quick test, nothing too scientific. /Tony
