[Devel] Re: L2 network namespace benchmarking (resend with Service Demand)
Benjamin Thery
benjamin.thery at bull.net
Fri Apr 6 04:19:36 PDT 2007
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano at fr.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> as suggested Rick, I added the Service Demand results to the matrix.
>
> A couple of random thoughts in trying to understand the numbers you are
> seeing.
>
> - Checksum offloading?
>
> You have noted that with the bridge netfilter support disabled you
> are still seeing additional checksum overhead. Just like you are
> seeing in the routing case.
>
> Is it possible the problem is simply that etun doesn't support
> checksum offloading, while your normal test hardware does?
Looks like you are 100% correct.
I feel a bit stupid I didn't think about this "small" difference
between real NIC and etun.
If I turn off checksum offloading on my physical NIC, the checksum
"overhead" (load) measured by oprofile is about the same in both case:
when running netperf through a real NIC or through an etun tunnel first.
Benjamin
> - Tagged VLANs?
>
> Currently you have tested bridging and routing to get the packets to
> a network namespace. Could you test tagged vlans?
>
> I'm just curious if we have anything in the network stack today that
> will multiplex a NIC without measurable overhead.
>
> - Without NETNS?
>
> We should probably see if we can setup the same configuration we are
> testing without network namespaces (just multiple interfaces on the
> same machine) and see if we can still measure the same overhead.
> Just to confirm the overhead is not a network namespace related
> thing.
>
> I know we can configure the same case with bridging and I am fairly
> confident that we will see the same overhead without network
> namespaces.
>
> Of the top of my head I am insufficiently clever to think how we
> could configure the routing case without network namespaces,
> although we might be able to force it and if so it would be
> interesting to measure.
>
> I will work to get the etun setup races fixed and to fix whatever
> obvious feature deficiencies it has (like no configurable MTU support)
> and see if I can get that pushed upstream. That should make it easier
> for other people to reproduce what we are seeing.
>
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
>
--
B e n j a m i n T h e r y - BULL/DT/Open Software R&D
http://www.bull.com
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list