From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 25 11:59:09 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437DD1065673 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:59:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-arch@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2EFD8FC17 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:59:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QwYaR-0000sR-Ur for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:59:07 +0200 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:59:07 +0200 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:59:07 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:58:55 +0200 Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <132388F1-44D9-45C9-AE05-1799A7A2DCD9@neville-neil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101102 Thunderbird/3.1.6 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Subject: Re: Updating our TCP and socket sysctl values... X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:59:09 -0000 On 24/08/2011 18:18, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Mar 19, 2011, at 6:37 AM, George Neville-Neil wrote: >> kern.ipc.maxsockbuf: 262144 >> net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_max: 262144 >> net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_max: 262144 >> >> I believe it's time to up these values to something that's in line with higher speed >> local networks, such as 10G. Perhaps it's time to move these to 2MB instead of 256K. >> >> Thoughts? > > > This never happened, did it? Was there a reason? While at it, did sshd buffer tuning happened?