Re: PF tcp sessions/s rate evaluation

2011-08-16 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2011-08-16, Quentin Aebischer quentin.aebisc...@usherbrooke.ca wrote: Hello everyone, I'm currently a master degree student, and I'd like to benchmark packet filter over the number of tcp sessions per seconds it can handle. So I've got a very basic setup working, consisting of one

Re: PF tcp sessions/s rate evaluation

2011-08-16 Thread Ryan McBride
There is not much to tweak, performance-wise. OpenBSD avoids such buttons like the plague, and besides: benchmarks should be run with a stock install, which is what 99% of users are going to be doing as well. You can try looking at the output of 'pfctl -si' and see if any of those is increasing a

Re: PF tcp sessions/s rate evaluation

2011-08-16 Thread Quentin Aebischer
Thx for the reply. Well I've already increased the state table size to 15 entries, 1 was not enough (there was up to 7 simultaneous state entries during the test). Hardware wise, I'm using a xeon 2.4 GHz monocore with 1 GB of RAM. Since this server is used as firewall only,

Re: PF tcp sessions/s rate evaluation

2011-08-16 Thread Ryan McBride
Just to clarify a bit, I would not be surprised if IPTables performs more quickly than PF in this particular test, for a couple of reasons: - PF uses a red-black tree for the session tracking, while iptables uses a hash table. The red-black tree means performance scales smoothly as the number

Re: PF tcp sessions/s rate evaluation

2011-08-16 Thread Theo de Raadt
Thx for the reply. Well I've already increased the state table size to 15 entries, 1 was not enough (there was up to 7 simultaneous state entries during the test). Hardware wise, I'm using a xeon 2.4 GHz monocore with 1 GB of RAM. Since this server is used as firewall