Hello Sam, I don't have the answer to this question, but I can make a few comments on my own behalf. Maybe it can give you an idea. As far as I observed, it is not PF's turn yet. I guess what needs to be done regarding cloned interfaces such as tun and the ethernet layer will be done first. In fact, as far as I follow, there are some issues in the UDP_input section. Of course, I'm sure a lot will change when PF becomes mp-safe, but I believe there is still time for that. PF's performance can reach up to 10Gbps with the right CPU selection. Do you have traffic that exceeds this? Maybe if you can provide specific information there will be a chance for someone to help. ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Samuel Jayden <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 17:54 To: Irreverent Monk <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Parallel PF
I shared a naive user experience. I didn't mean to be rude. Anyway, thank you for reading and responding. On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:46 PM Irreverent Monk <[email protected]> wrote: > The standard response is - show your code. If you sit down and think > about it, isn't it rude to go to a project to tell them that they must > prioritize what they are doing for what you want...? > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 6:40 AM Samuel Jayden <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hello dear OpenBSD team, >> >> I'm sure that something like parallel IP forwarding and increasing the >> number of softnet kernel tasks to 4 is definitely being considered on the >> PF side too, but I would like to express my concern about timing. Do you >> have any schedule for this? >> >> I think one of the common prayers of all OpenBSD users is that PF will >> speed up. Thank you for reading and my best regards. >> >> -- >> Sam >> >
