On 09/05/14 16:06, Justin Cormack wrote: >> > [netmap, dpdk & snabb] >> >> Running the networking stack "behind" the kernel has slightly different >> characteristics over a purely userspace stack: >> >> * applications use the kernel-offered service by default >> * syscall RPC is fast (let's not deny that it's RPC ;) so if you need >1 >> application to use the same networking stack, it might end up being a >> better performing approach >> > > Sure, was just looking at all the options. Some prototyping to see what > performs well would be useful.
My point was that performance isn't the only item to look at ;) If we threadjack a bit and talk strictly about userspace networking, I still postulate that the choice of packet I/O framework will not matter very much. Packet I/O cost is around 50 cycles per batch processed packet, while turning data into a packet (and vice versa) is >2000 cycles. So, I think that the best choice for most users will be the framework that performs best in other metrics such as ease-of-installation, hardware support, "ecosystem" (buzzword warning!) etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity • Requirements for releasing software faster • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce _______________________________________________ rumpkernel-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rumpkernel-users
