Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:23:24 +1100 | From | Lincoln Dale <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.9 pktgen module causes INIT process respawning and sickness |
| |
At 11:36 AM 23/11/2004, Jeff V. Merkey wrote: >>>I've studied these types of problems for years, and I think it's >>>possible even for Linux. >> >>so you have the source code --if its such a big deal for you, how about >>you contribute the work to make this possible ? > >Bryan Sparks says no to open sourcing this code in Linux. Sorry -- I >asked. I am allowed to open source any modifications >to public kernel sources like dev.c since we have an obligation to do so. >I will provide source code enhancements for the kernel >for anyone who purchases our Linux based appliances and asks for the >source code (so says Bryan Sparks). You can issue a purchase >request to Bryan Sparks (bryan@devicelogics.com) if you want any source >code changes for the Linux kernel.
LOL. in wonderland again?
>>the fact is, large-packet-per-second generation fits into two categories: >>(a) script kiddies / haxors who are interested in building DoS tools >>(b) folks that spend too much time benchmarking. >> >>for the (b) case, typically the PPS-generation is only part of it. >>getting meaningful statistics on reordering (if any) as well as accurate >>latency and ideally real-world traffic flows is important. there are >>specialized tools out there to do this: Spirent, Ixia, Agilent et al make them. > >There are about four pages of listings of open source tools and scripts >that do this -- we support all of them.
so you're creating a packet-generation tool? you mentioned already that you had to increase receive-buffers up to some large number. doesn't sound like a very useful packet-generation tool if you're internally having to buffer >60K packets . . . LOL.
>>i wouldn't call pushing minimum-packet-size @ 1GbE (which is 46 payload, >>72 bytes on the wire btw) "real world". and its 1.488M packets/second. >I agree. I have also noticed that CISCO routers are not even able to >withstand these rates with 64 byte packets without dropping them, >so I agree this is not real world. It is useful testing howevr, to >determine the limits and bottlenecks of where things break.
Cisco software-based routers? sure ... however, if you had an application which required wire-rate minimum-sized frames, then a software-based router wouldn't really be your platform of choice.
hint: go look at EANTC's testing of GbE and 10GbE L3 switches.
there's public test data of 10GbE with 10,000-line ACLs for both IPv4 & IPv6-based L3 switching.
cheers,
lincoln.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |