[dpdk-dev] lpm performance

[Andriy Berestovskyy]

AFAIR Intel hardware should do the 10Gbit/s line rate (i.e. ~14,8
MPPS) with one flow and LPM quite easily. Sorry, I don't have numbers
to share at hand.

Regarding the tool please see the pktgen-dpdk or TRex. Regarding the
number of flows and overall benchmarking methodology - please see
RFC2544.

Andriy


On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:47 PM, 张伟 <zhangwqh at 126.com> wrote:
> Thanks so much for your reply!  Usually how did you test lpm performance
> with variety of destination addresses? use which tool send the traffic? how
> many flows rules will you add? what's the performance you get?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 2016-09-20 17:41:13, "Andriy Berestovskyy" <aber at semihalf.com> wrote:
>>Hey,
>>You are correct. The LPM might need just one (TBL24) or two memory
>>reads (TBL24 + TBL8). The performance also drops once you have a
>>variety of destination addresses instead of just one (cache misses).
>>
>>In your case for the dst IP 192.168.1.2 you will have two memory reads
>>(TBL24 + TBL8), because 192.168.1/24 block has the more specific route
>>192.168.1.1/32.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Andriy
>>
>>On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:18 AM, 张伟 <zhangwqh at 126.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone test IPv4 performance? If so, what's the throughput? I can
>>> get almost 10Gb with 64 byte packets.  But before the test, I would expect
>>> it will be less than 10G.  I thought the performance will not be affected by
>>> the  number of rule entires. But the throughput will be related to whether
>>> the flow needs to check the second layer table : TBL8.  Is my understanding
>>> correct? I added this flow entries following this link:
>>> http://www.slideshare.net/garyachy/understanding-ddpd-algorithmics
>>> slide 10,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> struct ipv4_lpm_route ipv4_lpm_route_array[] = {
>>>
>>>         {IPv4(192, 168, 0, 0), 16, 0},
>>>
>>>         {IPv4(192, 168, 1, 0), 24, 1},
>>>
>>>         {IPv4(192, 168, 1, 1), 32, 2}
>>>
>>> };
>>>
>>> send the flow with dst IP:
>>>
>>> 192.168.1.2
>>>
>>> It should check the second layer table. But the performance is still 10G.
>>> Does any part go wrong with my setup? Or it really can achieve 10G with 64
>>> byte packet size.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Andriy Berestovskyy
>
>
>
>



-- 
Andriy Berestovskyy