Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:51:58 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: somaxconn and foot removal Message-ID: <20010212105158.B3274@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <20010212084657.U650@prism.flugsvamp.com>; from jlemon@flugsvamp.com on Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 08:46:57AM -0600 References: <20010211015516.J3274@fw.wintelcom.net> <20010212084657.U650@prism.flugsvamp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> [010212 06:46] wrote: > On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 01:55:16AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > The sysctl for somaxconn is an int, however the queue limits in the > > socket structures are 'short' this can cause some bad behavior if > > one sets somaxconn to more than 32k. > > > > A) So, do we bump the sockets to use 'int' for so->so_qlimit? > > B) Do we fix solisten() to compensate? > > C) Or de we fix the sysctl (patch below)? > > I'd patch sysctl. I can't imagine a listen queue > u_short actually > being all that useful; at some point it is better to just start > shedding load instead of queuing up numerous connections. It's for accept filters, I didn't expect to actually get that many connections however: 1) I shouldn't shoot myself in the foot by dinking this to a 'reasonable' number 2) aren't 16 bit ops more expensive on things like the Alpha? I think I have a generic way to implement a SYSCTL_LIMIT type thing, but it'll be a couple of days before I can present it. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010212105158.B3274>