Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 20:55:13 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, "David O'Brien" <nobody@nuix.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet tcp_usrreq.c Message-ID: <20010724205513.H5825@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20010718214902.H6519-100000@achilles.silby.com>; from silby@silby.com on Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 10:04:45PM -0500 References: <20010718121851.B26558@dragon.nuxi.com> <20010718214902.H6519-100000@achilles.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 10:04:45PM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote: > I think you're right in increasing the number of mbufs, but changing the > scaling factor is probably the wrong way to do it; it will cause people > with custom kernels to have many thousands more mbufs than they expect. > > In 4.x, the setting is currently at: > (512 + MAXUSERS * 16) > > current was > (1024 + MAXUSERS * 16) > > before your scaling change (to * 64). > > How about we instead change the constant amount, to perhaps: > (2048 + MAXUSERS * 16) I am open to this change, but would like see others comment also on this proposal. > (I'd like to do the scaling based on RAM size, > but I don't have time at the moment.) Agreed. I started on a set of diffs, but have not had time to finish them and test them. > Note that if we're increasing this, we should probably increase > maxfiles/sockets - that's probably more important now. Any one else with an opinion on this? -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) 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?20010724205513.H5825>