> system using the rest, this system is a 8core at 2.4Ghz, but only one > i have some numbers, I am filtering 773Kpps with kipfw using 60% of CPU
> On 10 November 2014 at 18:29, Evandro Nunes > (the IP addresses configured on it with ifconfig, ARP and RARP, etc.) > netmap-ipfw rules between the NIC and the host stack entry point associated > "kipfw netmap:em0 netmap:em0^" or "kipfw netmap:em0+" places the > "kipfw netmap:em0" disconnects the NIC from the usual data path, i.e., (Info from netmap(4) shipped with FreeBSD 10.1 RELEASE.) > To use the host stack, append a ^ character after the name of the interface > Clarifying things for the sake of documentation:
#Em0 netmap software
VALE software switch) which run entirely in the kernel. In userspace, but there are netmap clients (e.g.
#Em0 netmap code
Going to userspace is just a side effect - turns out toīe easier to develop and run your packet processing code Those that you'd pay going through the standard So things are actually the other way around: Good part of the device drivers, so you can access They bypass the entire network stack, and a Solutions (that includes Intel's DPDK, PF_RING/DNAĪnd several proprietary implementations) is speed: > firewall why would you want to bring them up into user space? It's 1000s > module that moves packets from 1 interface to another and hook in the On Sun, at 6:17 PM, Barney Cordoba via freebsd-net wrote: With us to help put this silly inferior netmap thingy out of business? You can just pop itīarney, do you have a working alternative implementation you can share > standard kernel without all of the netmap hacks. > kernel module with if_input() hooks is better is that you can use the
> do anything in the kernel that you can do in user space. > firewall (which is the limit of the context of my comment). > easier to write threaded handlers for complex uses but not as a > The only advantage of bringing it into user space would be that it's > and you there's no network stack involved, and your able to receive Your getting packets at interrupt time as soon as their processed > It's not faster than "wedging" into the if_input()s. On Mon, 15:29:13 +0000, Barney Cordoba via freebsd-net wrote: Luigi's efforts are not diminished by arguing that there is a better way to do something that he recommends to be done with netmap. Its unfortunate that these lists can't be used to brainstorm better potential better ideas. The mediocrity of freebsd network "utilities" is a function of the collective imagination of its users. When you're can't debate the merits of an implementation without having some weenie ask if you have a finished implementation to offer up for free, you end up stuck with misguided junk like netgraph and flowtables. A packet forwarder is a 3 day project (which means 2 weeks as we all know).
#Em0 netmap generator
Why limit the general community by force-feeding a really fast packet generator into the mainstream by squashing other ideas in their infancy? Anyone who understands how the kernel works understands what I'm saying. Many commercial companies have done such things.
0 kommentar(er)
