[129012] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: PacketShader
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Shankland)
Mon Aug 23 09:27:12 2010
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:27:00 -0700
From: Jim Shankland <nanog@shankland.org>
To: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100823213006.58dc2540@opy.nosense.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: nanog@shankland.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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
