top | item 38414091

(no title)

benou | 2 years ago

Also, the claims they make in the paper is inaccurate relative to VPP: they claim VPP uses "overlay/convert" method, which is true for DPDK drivers, but we also maintain native drivers for NIC we care about (eg. Intel's) - especially because going through the "overlay/convert" method is costly at high-packet rate.

IOW, one of their strong claim is that PacketMill is innovative because it avoids copying/converting uneeded metadata, but VPP is already doing that since years.

Finally, their claim to break the 100Gbps on single core @2.3GHz is cute, but again I'm afraid they're late to the party. They claim 12-13Mpps per core for 64-bytes packets for example but VPP can achieve 20+Mpps per core already for L3 forwarding (routing).

Again, benchmarking is hard, but I keep reading there claims over and over in academic papers when they're factually wrong for area I know about. I can only imagine what is happening for area I don't know :(

discuss

order

No comments yet.