Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 20:48:03 -0500 (EST) From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@dsuper.net> To: David Greenman <dg@root.com> Cc: Tom <tom@uniserve.com>, Greg Prosser <greg@snickers.org>, freebsd <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: SYN Hardening patches? / SYN Code in 3.4-RC Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.05.9912122042160.27003-100000@oracle.dsuper.net> In-Reply-To: <199912122306.PAA04823@implode.root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 12 Dec 1999, David Greenman wrote: !>>On Sun, 12 Dec 1999, Tom wrote: !>> !>>!> !>>!> Setting maxusers to 256 isn't help you any at all, btw. !>>!> !>>!>Tom !>>!> !>> !>> This is simply untrue. !>> !>> MAXUSERS directly influences the number of mbufs which, in turn, !>> influence the size of mb_map. Bumping up MAXUSERS in reasonable amounts !>> will, in fact, contribute to a larger mb_map. !> !> Only if you don't specify NMBCLUSTERS, which the original poster did. !> !>-DG !> !>David Greenman !>Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org !>Creator of high-performance Internet servers - http://www.terasolutions.com !>Pave the road of life with opportunities. !> Even at that, MAXUSERS still contributes to the mb_map size. I see your point, though, in the sense that by setting up NMBCLUSTERS, the overall size of mb_map will be affected by that setting, and not MAXUSERS, in general. So here's the question: Why not remove MAXUSERS' influence over the size of the mb_map, and just have it influenced by a single option? -- Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@dsuper.net> http://pages.infinit.net/bmilekic/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.4.05.9912122042160.27003-100000>