Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:03:00 -0500 From: Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com> To: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, re <re@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: nmbclusters: how do we want to fix this for 8.3 ? Message-ID: <CACqU3MWFhoudySp7k-aDceeDVCLfaRLtSAk75exjNx55VvKmFA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAFOYbc=oU5DxZDZQZZe4wJhVDoP=ocVOnpDq7bT=HbVkAjffLQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAFOYbc=oU5DxZDZQZZe4wJhVDoP=ocVOnpDq7bT=HbVkAjffLQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> wrote: > Using igb and/or ixgbe on a reasonably powered server requires 1K mbuf > clusters per MSIX vector, > that's how many are in a ring. Either driver will configure 8 queues on a > system with that many or more > cores, so 8K clusters per port... > > My test engineer has a system with 2 igb ports, and 2 10G ixgbe, this is > hardly heavy duty, and yet this > exceeds the default mbuf pool on the installed kernel (1024 + maxusers * > 64). > > Now, this can be immediately fixed by a sysadmin after that first boot, but > it does result in the second > driver that gets started to complain about inadequate buffers. > > I think the default calculation is dated and should be changed, but am not > sure the best way, so are > there suggestions/opinions about this, and might we get it fixed before 8.3 > is baked? > get rid of the limit once and for all, it is pointless. - Arnaud
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACqU3MWFhoudySp7k-aDceeDVCLfaRLtSAk75exjNx55VvKmFA>