iptables-restore vs iptables-restore --noflush performance

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: netfilter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: iptables-restore vs iptables-restore --noflush performance
From: Joubert Berger <joubertb@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:13:19 -0400
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=N95V6CQqFHUAxMVgetnNoBuDc0r/AltTifQXBa71aIOA2F2intn/FXXKbhyfJuiajzn8RlljIYi68rX4zTzWsRVFBFSDKhK9+vNzXpMXbbDKuYwqhFhndsvMzgMI9g8JzP/Nni1gKZcE6CG/2dxKReyzOBL3D/rG4QPk9wmRvu0=
Reply-to: joubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netfilter-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Anyone know why I would get a big performance difference between
"iptables-restore" and "iptables-restore --noflush"?

I have 6600 rules.  If I load with iptables-restore, it takes about 30sec.
If I use noflush, that turns in 1 min and 20+ seconds.

--joubert

Follow-Ups:
- Re: iptables-restore vs iptables-restore --noflush performance
  - From: Steven M Campbell

Prev by Date: Re: IP:Port REDIRECT problem
Next by Date: Re: iptables-restore vs iptables-restore --noflush performance
Previous by thread: not solve yet!!!
Next by thread: Re: iptables-restore vs iptables-restore --noflush performance
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Netfilter Development] [Linux Kernel Networking Development] [Netem] [Berkeley Packet Filter] [Linux Kernel Development] [Advanced Routing & Traffice Control] [Bugtraq]

Powered by Linux