I have updated the pdf a bit according to various feedbacks. Graphs stay same.
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Sepherosa Ziehau <[email protected]> wrote: > Some profiling seems not well generated, here is the raw pictures: > > https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/1K.png > https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/8K.png > https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/16K.png > https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perfcomp/ipfwd-bi.png > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Sepherosa Ziehau <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Since so many folks are interested in the performance comparison, I >> just did one network related comparison here: >> https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/perf_cmp.pdf >> >> The intention is _not_ to troll, but to identify gaps, and what we can >> do to keep improving DragonFlyBSD. >> >> According to the comparison, we _do_ find one area DragonFlyBSD's >> network stack can be improved: >> Utilize all available CPUs for network protocol processing. >> >> Currently we only use power-of-2 CPUs to handle network protocol >> processing, e.g. on 24 CPUs system, only 16 CPUs will be used to >> handle network protocol processing. It is fine for workload involving >> userland applications, e.g. the HTTP server workload. But it seems >> forwarding can enjoy all available CPUs. I will work on this. >> >> Thanks, >> sephe >> >> -- >> Tomorrow Will Never Die > > > > -- > Tomorrow Will Never Die -- Tomorrow Will Never Die
