Or Gerlitz wrote: > Ben Greear wrote: >> Well, it seems we could and should fix veth to work, but it will have >> to do equivalent work of copying an skb most likely, so either way >> you'll probably get a big performance hit. > Using the same pktgen script (i.e with clone=0) I see that a > veth-->bridge-->veth configuration gives about 400K PPS forwarding > performance where macvlan-->veth-->macvlan gives 680K PPS (again, I > made sure that the bridge has applied learning before I start the > test). Basically, both the bridge and macvlan use hash on the > destination mac in order to know to which device forward the packet, > is there anything in the bridge logic that can explain the gap? It > there something which isn't really apples-to-apples in this comparison? A VETH has to send to it's peer, so your descriptions are a bit vague. What are you really configuring? Maybe show us your script or commands that set up each of these tests? Ben > > Or. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
