Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:46:22 +0100 From: Ragnar Lonn <ragnar@gatorhole.com> To: ticso@cicely.de Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: More open sockets with vimages? Message-ID: <498EE22E.7020005@gatorhole.com> In-Reply-To: <20090208130435.GL32126@cicely7.cicely.de> References: <498DF945.3000702@gatorhole.com> <498E0797.4040002@elischer.org> <498EC554.4020905@gatorhole.com> <20090208130435.GL32126@cicely7.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bernd Walter wrote: > This is simple maths: > 100k Sockets with 32k TX and 64k RX buffer take 9G Memory. > Just buffer space, not to mention socket state, ... > On i386 this is limited by kmem, which defaults to IIRC 512MB and > is limited by 32bit virtual address space on i386. > On amd64 depending on the OS version you can have a kmem of slighty > less than 2G max or several GB. > Nevertheless you are still limited with physical RAM. > Smaller buffers are possible, but usually people want larger buffers > to keep up with recent line speeds. > Today buffer sizes can be dynamic - don't know the exact details, but > you should keep in mind that 32k/96k is already quite small for > many purposes. > But physical memory is cheap, and most low-end machines can have 16G or more today. Is it just a matter of having enough RAM and a 64-bit OS then? How much is "several GB [kmem]" that you mention above? /Ragnar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?498EE22E.7020005>