Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754914AbXLEKcB (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 05:32:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753195AbXLEKbn (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 05:31:43 -0500 Received: from hs-out-0708.google.com ([64.233.178.247]:37888 "EHLO hs-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751472AbXLEKbl (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 05:31:41 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=WFPNTy7gSzMN9ykh7Dst8bYTrIGV8D5KCNv6efnwmqss+ObSDvA78MmYOTlkanDDmI+Iib8Qhc+tF9LTVTvblpdIZ7QnPyFadtyGoUBcsYXxIoFOG1/KsdVOENETZeshRTf7zdCQ/pbuL+pbyEV1CPP9nnI5L+KfgrY22CRHVZQ= Subject: Re: Kernel Development & Objective-C From: Gilboa Davara To: Lennart Sorensen Cc: LKML Linux Kernel In-Reply-To: <20071204175046.GC2310@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <474EAD18.6040408@stellatravel.co.uk> <20071130143445.GA2310@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <53ADBDBF-9B65-441E-B867-D68DE48ABD64@mac.com> <4751BE0D.3050609@argo.co.il> <47539030.10600@argo.co.il> <1196685331.3969.20.camel@gilboa-work-dev.localdomain> <20071204175046.GC2310@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:31:34 +0200 Message-Id: <1196850694.23475.8.camel@gilboa-work-dev.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 (2.12.1-3.fc8) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1715 Lines: 38 On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 12:50 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 02:35:31PM +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote: > > Intel's newest dual 10GbE NIC can easily (?) throw ~14M packets per > > second. (theoretical peak at 1514bytes/frame) > > Granted, installing such a device on a single CPU/single core machine is > > absurd - but even on an 8 core machine (2 x Xeon 53xx/54xx / AMD > > Barcelona) it can still generate ~1M packets/s per core. > > 10GbE can't do 14M packets per second if the packets are 1514 bytes. At > 10M packets per second you have less than 1000 bits per packet, which is > far from 1514bytes. > > 10Gbps gives you at most 1.25GBps, which at 1514 bytes per packet works > out to 825627 packets per second. You could reach ~14M packets per > second with only the smallest packet size, which is rather unusual for > high throughput traffic, since you waste almost all the bytes on > overhead in that case. But you do want to be able to handle at least a > million or two packets per second to do 10GbE. ... I corrected my math in the second email. [1] Never the less, a VOIP network (E.g. G729 and friends) can generate the maximum number of frames allowed on 10GbE Ethernet which is, AFAIR just below 15M -per- port. (~29M on a dual port card) While I doubt that any non-NPU based NIC can handle such a load, on mixed networks we're already seeing well-above 1M frames per port. - Gilboa [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/3/69 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/