Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:25:18 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Mats Lofkvist <mal@algonet.se> Cc: imp@village.org, bmilekic@technokratis.com, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64 bit counters again Message-ID: <3C44902E.F9E0B6C@mindspring.com> References: <20020114105859.A24635@technokratis.com> <3C4305E5.65BB32A6@FreeBSD.org> <20020114114911.A24990@technokratis.com> <20020114.130705.84407599.imp@village.org> <3C439B25.27DCCB2D@mindspring.com> <20020115091235.23322.qmail@kairos.algonet.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mats Lofkvist wrote: > > The idea that some counter size will never be exceeded by > > technology by the time it is obsolete is what has people > > complaining about 32 bit counters in this thread already; > > are you prepared to make the same base assumption in the > > choice of 64 bit counters? A terabit network could push > > a 64 bit counter over in under 6 months. > > And it (a terabit network) would overflow the 1kB modular > counter solution in 35 seconds or so. Yes, I know, larger > blocks than 1kB should be used in the global counter, and > I guess multiple levels of (32-bit) modular counters can > be used to achieve higher limits, but will it still be > cheaper than just using a 64 bit counter? At that point, no. THat's the main reason I sugested counting something else instead of bytes. If you count something that doesn't increase with as steep a slope as the rate of increase of interface speeds (HP is sampling 10Gbit parts right now, even though the standard has not solidified because the optical people can't figure out how to get their parts that fast), all you do is put off the inevitable, so long as you keep the linear bound relationship between the measured values and the speed. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C44902E.F9E0B6C>