[quagga-dev 10955] Re: high-bandwidth, low-latency quagga necessary ?

Alexis Rosen quagga-users at alexis.users.panix.com
Tue Dec 10 03:11:33 GMT 2013


On Dec 9, 2013, at 12:24 PM, "Charlet, Ricky" <ricky.charlet at hp.com> wrote:
>                 Don’t view DPDK as replacing the drivers, view DPDK as replacing the TCPIP stack (and drivers). But there is a trick… All communication that zebra has with the kernel, over ioctl or over netlink, stays the same and DPDK snoops it and just “does the right thing”. The kernel interface is unmodified.

Thanks for the followup.

So how does this work with, say, netfilter and xtables? Those live in kernel space... Is there a shared memory region? Does it work with v6? Conntrack (not that you likely want to be using that in a high-throughput environment)?

> [...] If you agree with my reasoning, very close to *nothing* in quagga needs to be modified to adapt to a DPDK system. Well, why should I equivocate… OK… I claim that truly nothing in quagga need be modified to adapt to a DPDK system that leaves quagga daemon (control plane) sockets to the kernel.

That sounds wonderful. Now, the question is, how big an impact will this have? Have you tested this at all? A couple of years ago we set up a lab for throughput testing (some of the results of which I posted here) but that's long gone and I don't expect to be able to do that again in the next couple of months.

Can anyone here give some numbers for a running quagga system, before and after installing DPDK? Either max PPS throughput (hopefully per-core), or CPU usage per core for a given level of traffic? And, can anyone confirm that they did this without modifying the Quagga config at all?

/a



More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list