nanog mailing list archives
Re: PacketShader
From: Jim Shankland <nanog () shankland org>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:27:00 -0700
Mark Smith wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 05:59:43 -0400 Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote: I missed that, and that answers the "was it a GigaBytes verses Gigabits error" question. Nothing new here by the looks of it - people in this thread were getting those sorts of speeds a year ago out of PC hardware under Linux - http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/15/234 "I have achieved a collective throughput of 66.25 Gbit/s." "We've achieved 70 Gbps aggregate unidirectional TCP performance from one P6T6 based system to another."
Very nice, but doing this with 1514-byte packets is the low-hanging fruit. (9K packets? That's the fruit that falls off the tree and into your basket while you're napping :-).) The more interesting limit: how many 40-byte packets per second can you shovel into this system and still have all of them come out the other end? Jim Shankland
Current thread:
- PacketShader Michael Painter (Aug 23)
- Re: PacketShader Valdis . Kletnieks (Aug 23)
- Re: PacketShader Mark Smith (Aug 23)
- Re: PacketShader Jim Shankland (Aug 23)
- Re: PacketShader Kevin Oberman (Aug 23)
- Re: PacketShader Randy Bush (Aug 23)
- Re: PacketShader Mark Smith (Aug 23)
- Re: PacketShader Valdis . Kletnieks (Aug 23)
- Re: PacketShader Joel Jaeggli (Aug 23)
- Re: PacketShader Andrew Kirch (Aug 23)
- Re: PacketShader Owen DeLong (Aug 23)
- Re: PacketShader Joel Jaeggli (Aug 23)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: PacketShader William Pitcock (Aug 23)
- Re: PacketShader nanogf . (Aug 26)
