From: raviraj joshi <raviraj.j1991@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:16:01 +0530 > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:06 AM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: raviraj joshi <raviraj.j1991@xxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:34:22 +0530 >> >>> We have decided to use PF_RING(a kernel module to capture packets) for >>> the same due to the number of advantages. >> >> What "advantages"? The AF_PACKET socket layer already upstream in the >> kernel supports every relevant performance feature PF_RING does, and >> then some. > I refered to the document on "A Measurement Study of Packet Reception > using Linux"[1] which said pf_ring maintains > a ring buffer, so we dont have to issue a receive system call for each > packet in contrast to AF_PACKET which issues a system call for each > packet(pls correct me if i am wrong). AF_PACKET supports mmap()'d packet rings, and even supports variable packet lengths within those rings. AF_PACKET supports all the worthwhile performance features of PR_RING and it's upstream, stop kidding yourself. I'm really sick and tired of people saying PF_RING is better than what we have upstream, it really isn't. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
