search for: 600kpps

Hi! I want to upgrade hardware on my router (iptables, htb, >1000 users). Now it is based on usual desktop PC (Intel Prescott P4 3.00 Ghz, 1 Gb RAM). The reason of hardware upgrade is growing up number of users, also we are planning to increase upstream link from 100 Mbit/s to 1 Gbit/s. Iptables rules are now optimized with ipset tool, for tc I''m using hash tables as well. So I

...the host to the VM does not make a big change with the > patches in small packets scenario (minimum, 64 bytes, about 645 > without the patch, ~625 with batch and batch+buf api). If the packets > are bigger, I can see a performance increase: with 256 bits, it goes > from 590kpps to about 600kpps, and in case of 1500 bytes payload it > gets from 348kpps to 528kpps, so it is clearly an improvement. > > * with testpmd and event_idx=on, batching+buf api perform similarly in > both directions. > > All of testpmd tests were performed with no linux bridge, just a > host'...

...ig change with the > patches in small packets scenario (minimum, 64 bytes, about 645 > without the patch, ~625 with batch and batch+buf api). If the packets > are bigger, I can see a performance increase: with 256 bits, I think you meant bytes? > it goes > from 590kpps to about 600kpps, and in case of 1500 bytes payload it > gets from 348kpps to 528kpps, so it is clearly an improvement. > > * with testpmd and event_idx=on, batching+buf api perform similarly in > both directions. > > All of testpmd tests were performed with no linux bridge, just a > host's...

...about 645 >>> without the patch, ~625 with batch and batch+buf api). If the packets >>> are bigger, I can see a performance increase: with 256 bits, >> >> I think you meant bytes? >> > Yes, sorry. > >>> it goes >>> from 590kpps to about 600kpps, and in case of 1500 bytes payload it >>> gets from 348kpps to 528kpps, so it is clearly an improvement. >>> >>> * with testpmd and event_idx=on, batching+buf api perform similarly in >>> both directions. >>> >>> All of testpmd tests were perfor...

...the packets > > >>> are bigger, I can see a performance increase: with 256 bits, > > >> > > >> I think you meant bytes? > > >> > > > Yes, sorry. > > > > > >>> it goes > > >>> from 590kpps to about 600kpps, and in case of 1500 bytes payload it > > >>> gets from 348kpps to 528kpps, so it is clearly an improvement. > > >>> > > >>> * with testpmd and event_idx=on, batching+buf api perform similarly in > > >>> both directions. > > >>...

This still causes corruption issues for people so don't try to use in production please. Posting to expedite debugging. This adds infrastructure required for supporting multiple ring formats. The idea is as follows: we convert descriptors to an independent format first, and process that converting to iov later. Used ring is similar: we fetch into an independent struct first, convert that to

This still causes corruption issues for people so don't try to use in production please. Posting to expedite debugging. This adds infrastructure required for supporting multiple ring formats. The idea is as follows: we convert descriptors to an independent format first, and process that converting to iov later. Used ring is similar: we fetch into an independent struct first, convert that to

Hi, we are currently considering different options for rolling out a large scale IP PBX to handle around 3,000 + concurrent calls. Can this be done with Asterisk? Has it been done before? I really would like an input on this. Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: