well only if it was used little amounts, like once every hour, it would dynamically unload in between, and dont modules, recompile on each use? I was told they were, although im more of a sound driver person.
- "Yes. Yes. OKAY.", Installing Microsoft software has always felt like an argument with your Mum (alledgedly).
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:36:52 -0400 (EDT) Mark Hahn <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> Using it as a module would only slow you down if netfilter is required,
> because itwould load and unload, contstantly, causing you to remember
> what the 486 was like.
It's unlikely to be unloaded.
Regards,
Thunder
--
(Use http://www.ebb.org/ungeek if you can't decode)
------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Version: 3.12
GCS/E/G/S/AT d- s++:-- a? C++$ ULAVHI++++$ P++$ L++++(+++++)$ E W-$
N--- o? K? w-- O- M V$ PS+ PE- Y- PGP+ t+ 5+ X+ R- !tv b++ DI? !D G
e++++ h* r--- y-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Hi,
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> well only if it was used little amounts, like once every hour, it would
> dynamically unload in between,
That's ok then. It shouldn't produce significant overhead. But on the
routers that I run I have either no netfilters at all, or they keep
running, so even if they were a module, they'd never have any time to
unload.
> and dont modules, recompile on each use?
No, because that would be pointless. And it would keep the kernel from
running properly on systems without a c compiler.
Regards,
Thunder
--
(Use http://www.ebb.org/ungeek if you can't decode)
------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Version: 3.12
GCS/E/G/S/AT d- s++:-- a? C++$ ULAVHI++++$ P++$ L++++(+++++)$ E W-$
N--- o? K? w-- O- M V$ PS+ PE- Y- PGP+ t+ 5+ X+ R- !tv b++ DI? !D G
e++++ h* r--- y-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>> we use linux as our router. i just tested the performance of the router with smartbits, and i found that the throughput of 64byte frame is only 25%, about 35kpps.
>> someone mentioned that the throughput of 64byte frame could reach 70kpps.so i wish i could improve the performance of our router,but i don't know how to do that.
>you will probably need to provide a lot more details,
>such as what the host CPU is, whether you've done any
>kernel profiling, which kernel you're using, etc.
the CPU is PIII800, 256M ram.
kernel 2.4.19-pre1
i just add some patches of netfilter to the kernel,such as the time patch. btw,i compiled all the netfilter options into the kernel,not as modules. will that affect the performance?
thanks.
chuanbo zheng
Using it as a module would only slow you down if netfilter is required, because itwould load and unload, contstantly, causing you to remember what the 486 was like.
- "Yes. Yes. OKAY.", Installing Microsoft software has always felt like an argument with your Mum (alledgedly).
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 9:23:45 +0800 zhengchuanbo <[email protected]> wrote:
Thunder from the hill <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> > well only if it was used little amounts, like once every hour, it would
> > dynamically unload in between,
>
> That's ok then. It shouldn't produce significant overhead. But on the
> routers that I run I have either no netfilters at all, or they keep
> running, so even if they were a module, they'd never have any time to
> unload.
Only if you have a cron job running rmmod -a will the module unload.
The kernel never unloads modules without being asked.
Eric