From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f173.google.com (mail-pf0-f173.google.com [209.85.192.173]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4171A567A for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:09:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pf0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 21so33014370pfy.0 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 11:09:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xEZoB9iucZ9CfkP57JU1sbt595JXDGyoPLe52D0awcw=; b=RPss4FXead3k6OwwEvM7HQBqYRkR4uZeDMVvTaOThmP9FNihWT/UMU69CsBikOzGzn ccPHXehs7WBCFq9i/Zp0G9YRhdzH+YvF+hcfD1z63m2q/+pzsmNSoFs7D2c/vXupxWKv yYopFkwE1iXCyWaqj/oJC2Uf1qMkW7JSbtBmtbkVgCAotCNFPX+hBMvNri+F3YbmEzpH ebHKb0DvZpiWR/2QL0PxJg34LVsM+sjrk39cBNK5tqBUGS5IS1l/jeXOdbR6PPWXZRkl M1CxBrJnlVi41XKCaUauBxjAy5T/y8uLGM65kLrn5bm5aFydnS4QVYg35ndAZKCodulL aE6A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xEZoB9iucZ9CfkP57JU1sbt595JXDGyoPLe52D0awcw=; b=hQmcLGSPmmxTpbDMYU+PmrS2aW+2FY0N6AgAvO4F8QKIRzdTfAIWMtrtSRr20Op3C+ 97qA4SaLcbN6I/OzShU86lvHJvgSDfJhArTt98xAZyRWyohpNToRzLuwZe6cdFAWlmV4 8gR5312AOWZ7z9nY2HJmeRqCogyKJb4CxxMVOz7wrl9TLhio9bToUQ4XhbR8knHZdy3d /+OY8sHYs7U3ruI+Yos9nkzWrbf9Bif1rYuvgLv69YjHVp3cc2kcaRagGluUXqLfy/Op PW5IrVLaKwj7rd3wqbht5xBeUlAXkuMAPCtDW0e8Pr/6sJpMdiiGcwdCCEZ5matuE5R4 3A2w== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMpx5ThiEYPkQpFfE202rEVodNQZd80r2Hu8U3WUnKaToPl0oeQ/2jYeDqTGN1OMw== X-Received: by 10.98.56.148 with SMTP id f142mr5416649pfa.83.1474567745581; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 11:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xeon-e3 (static-50-53-69-251.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net. [50.53.69.251]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r29sm220617pfd.37.2016.09.22.11.09.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 22 Sep 2016 11:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 11:09:14 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Matthew Hall Cc: Thomas Monjalon , "dev@dpdk.org" , Nikita Kozlov Message-ID: <20160922110914.3f7b1854@xeon-e3> In-Reply-To: <20160922175543.GA19530@mhcomputing.net> References: <20160919212257.GA27713@mhcomputing.net> <3263960.cPWMKkvuZx@xps13> <20160921172905.GA7158@mhcomputing.net> <20160921164205.000645d8@xeon-e3> <20160922015034.GA10277@mhcomputing.net> <20160922175543.GA19530@mhcomputing.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] LPM6 next hop size X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:09:06 -0000 On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:55:43 -0700 Matthew Hall wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:07:46PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > If you have 2G of huge memory and one 16M routes then the rules start to > > kill an application. > > Since huge memory is unpageable (pinned) then it is limited. > > Won't paging out routes result in very poor network performance? This is the rules not the LPM table itself. The rules are only used when computing new LPM after add/delete route.