IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] network traffic

Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> Mon, 23 February 2015 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <kurt@roeckx.be>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B01191A1A62 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:18:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EMLE29YscWmK for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:18:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from defiant.e-webshops.eu (defiant.e-webshops.eu [82.146.122.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 587E21A1A45 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:18:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from intrepid.roeckx.be (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by defiant.e-webshops.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B88F1C213A for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:18:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: by intrepid.roeckx.be (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 39FF21FE018B; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:18:06 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:18:06 +0100
From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
To: cfrg@irtf.org
Message-ID: <20150223231806.GA767@roeckx.be>
References: <20150222163717.GA6342@roeckx.be> <20150223032102.23370.qmail@cr.yp.to> <20150223211329.GA27739@roeckx.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150223211329.GA27739@roeckx.be>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/ACcHN-Qt5xne34qV26eTr8Hx7WY>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] network traffic
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 23:18:09 -0000

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:13:29PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> As you can probably see, there are a lot of factors.

I think 5 gbps is actually more realistic for you example, so I'm
just going to give that as an alternative.

bandwidth limited: start with 500k connections/s of 10kB.  That
drops to 498.4k connections/s, spend .027% less cpu. (factor
of 12.)

cpu limited: go from 2 microseconds to 1.83 microseconds per
connection, or go to 545.4k connections/s.  Performances increases
with 9.1%, bandwith goes to 5.47 gbit/s increasing 9.4%.


Kurt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email