[Soekris] Maximum throughput on Soekris 4521
hkubota at gmx.net
Wed Aug 6 12:38:23 UTC 2003
Christian van den Bosch wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Harald Kubota wrote:
>>This is a bit less than 100MBit/s what it could have been theoretically.
>Bear in mind that the kernel will most likely be doing store-and-forward,
>unless you the NIC driver was compiled to support direct forwarding, so
>unless the application you were using buffer-stuffs (i.e. writes a packet
>or two ahead of what it's got acks for) this will have a significant
>impact on throughput. What was CPU load like? what happens if you do two
>transfers at the same time? in the same direction? in opposite directions?
Whoa! I did quick tests last week, no time for benchmark suites! ;-)
I wanted to know whether Linux 2.6 can handle more than 12 Mbit/s using
non-trivial firewall rules and NAT. Since I got far more than 12 MBit/s
throughput, I was happy and the net4521 works for what I planned it
to be used for.
Back to your concerns:
I could have used fast-forwarding in the Linux kernel, but that's
incompatible with firewalling. Which is what I need.
So, yes, it probably can forward packets faster given the correct kernel
options (especially with the zero-copy-TCP-capable natsemi driver),
but that's not what I wanted to know. I wanted the store-and-forward
as AFAIK firewalls do that.
If Linux and/or FreeBSD/OpenBSD can do firewalling with zero-copy-TCP, please
someone enlighten me.
Since I have the hardware encryption Mini-PCI board and Linux does not
(beside some old patch for some old FreeS/WAN) and since I want to use
I never planned to use Linux anyway. It was just the quickest test I
could use to
check out the forwarding speed.
As soon as I have FreeBSD up and running, I'll do more tests. Especially
tests. And with real-life firewall rules and NAT. And with more
not only netperf.
Benchmark-suite, here we come!
More information about the Soekris-tech