IPfilter
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: pfil and network performance

To: <darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au>
Subject: RE: pfil and network performance
From: "Buozis, Martynas" <martynas@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:45:09 +0100
Cc: <ipfilter@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: ipfilter-list@securepoint.com
In-reply-to: <45D2B16E.3090909@reed.wattle.id.au>
References: <1266A6320AD3884EA8142B354DFBA31A069ECF12@dfre02.ent.ti.com> <45D2B16E.3090909@reed.wattle.id.au>
Sender: owner-ipfilter@coombs.anu.edu.au
Thread-index: AcdQBLD2/yGnefu4TbmItyFFboxLCQABtUDQ
Thread-topic: pfil and network performance
Darren

Thanks a lot for your response. Can you advice what and how I shall
check on OS side to confirm that pfil performance is optimal ?

Also do you find DEBUG options possible cause of the problem as stated
by Andrew ?


With best regards
Martynas 

-----Original Message-----
From: Darren Reed [mailto:darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 7:51 AM
To: Buozis, Martynas
Cc: ipfilter@coombs.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: pfil and network performance

Buozis, Martynas wrote:
> Hello
>
> I am running IPFilter installation on Solaris 8 (Generic_117350-41).
> PFIL version is  2.1.11,REV=10:54:27 11/16/06.
>
> We noticed, that PFIL is causing big impact to network performance
even
> when IPFilter is stopped (just PFIL is loaded) and no rules are
present.
> 2GB file copy from NFS server took 35 minutes with PFIL loaded, while
> without PFIL only 3 minutes were required to copy same file.
>
> Can somebody advice were problem is with PFIL ?
>   

It shouldn't cause performance to drop this much...sounds like something
is going wrong.

The pfil module will stop any performance improvements due to hardware
features
such as checksum offload being activated.

Darren



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>