From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261703AbULFX62 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:58:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261706AbULFX62 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:58:28 -0500 Received: from mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.188]:3005 "EHLO mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261703AbULFX6Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:58:24 -0500 References: <20041206205305.GA11970@soohrt.org> <20041206134849.498bfc93.davem@davemloft.net> <20041206224107.GA8529@soohrt.org> Message-ID: X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/ From: Con Kolivas To: Karsten Desler Cc: David =?ISO-8859-1?B?Uy4=?= Miller , netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: _High_ CPU usage while routing (mostly) small UDP packets Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 10:56:58 +1100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Karsten Desler writes: > * David S. Miller wrote: >> It's spending nearly half of it's time in iptables. >> Try to consolidate your rules if possible. This is the >> part of netfilter that really doesn't scale well at all. >> > > Removing the iptables rules helps reducing the load a little, but the > majority of time is still spent somewhere else. I had a similar scenario recently with a very low spec box and found it to be the QoS. Disabling traffic shaping and removing the QoS modules made it much faster. I don't know if you're using them but it's worth pointing out. Cheers, Con