From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ea0-x22d.google.com (mail-ea0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::22d]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7784E1F3 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:16:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ea0-f173.google.com with SMTP id g10so817473eak.18 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:16:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=lyA6zPIgaEJDwW5PLIKmbmckj2AUauRC2LhZTtyS0mU=; b=ymckiLxpXPcSXdUmFd0HIcHr6kNklloHFVigil0i7ZFNN0qlszoCpKt3XxZcBe7pTI +hzrYEynSLUV7kWSdWIMM3NFMqaz+/EJDNqWfTijdGq5/f567Sdhc+G3MQOPhhGSmPnE wbrsyPhWeSR2jekNhjAe3z+scLtcO5TiWKTDIx4Y7sAd5p4srwTQX7FHLi7v6612v+aQ Y+piI5e5xYqoR21IyAgSTjZbosQvt2f+xinV4luw4OXd0ng7XHlqWGeJHR4Jm/7AyeXh HGa13CIpnlM+XDhKpLNI+1zp5zbrD1j26HT94VbMJvT3l1NekvBt6sntv49imvrmY3FG /ZWA== X-Received: by 10.14.88.65 with SMTP id z41mr4465651eee.38.1380230212143; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:16:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.9.130 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:16:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5241B572.5090009@6wind.com> References: <5241B572.5090009@6wind.com> From: Chris Pappas Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:16:12 +0200 Message-ID: To: Vincent JARDIN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] L3FWD LPM IP lookup performance question 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, 26 Sep 2013 21:16:11 -0000 Hi, we are having some numbers regarding the performance of L3FWD and would like to confirm that they make sense. So, for L3FWD and 1500byte packets we get 120Gbps out of 12x10Gbps ports (so we get full throughput) and for 64byte packets we get 80Gbps. According to Intel documentation [1] these numbers make sense, but we would like to double check. Is there any information regarding the lookup method in the forwarding table for LPM lookup? Also, we used a forwarding table with 500K entries, which fits totally in L3 cache, so there shouldn't be any delays because of cache misses (which again is in compliance with our results and Intel documentation). Is the size of the forwarding table normal or did we use a very small one (or does anyone know how many entries the forwarding table that was used for Intel's performance numbers)? [1] http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/solution-briefs/communications-packet-processing-brief.pdf Best regards, Chris On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Vincent JARDIN wrote: > I do not know any open source implementation of an efficient LPM. FYI, > some data with a commercial one: > -> up to 160Mpps, the bottleneck was the IOs, not the CPU. > http://www.6wind.com/products/**6windgate-protocols/ip-**forwarding/ > > Best regards, > Vincent > > > On 24/09/2013 15:53, Jun Han wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> We are trying to benchmark L3FWD application and have a question regarding >> the IP lookup algorithm as we expect the bottleneck to be at the lookup. >> Could someone let us know how efficient the lookup algorithm that L3FWD is >> using (e.g, LPM)? We are asking because we want to obtain highest L3 >> forwarding performance number, and we might need to change the lookup >> method if the current LPM method is not as efficient. >> >> Thank you very much, >> >> Jun >> >> >