On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 06:39:49PM +0100, Srebrenko Sehic wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 04:13:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I assume that 'pass out all keep state' makes pf(4), at least, do a > > > state lookup in the table? AFAIK, that's, in worst case scenario, 16 > > > searches down the binary tree? That ought to eat a few cycles. > > I really doubt there is a performance issue here, or really, that this > > would be the bottleneck. If it is, show the facts, and we (I use the > > royal we here, meaning Daniel or Henning) can address it then. > Hmm? It might not be a major bottleneck, but keeping state for nothing > and on _two_ interfaces, must cost something. Let's not forget about > memory cost also.
pah. 380000 state table entries in 128MB memory. wanna talk about memory cost? 15000 packets/s on a duron 700 at 10% CPU. wanna talk about performance impact? pah humbug. Profile, don't speculate. -- Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
