Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:43:37 +0400 (MSD) From: Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: Max Khon <fjoe@samodelkin.net> Subject: Re: "netstat -m" and sendfile(2) statistics in STABLE Message-ID: <20040618103517.L81288@is.park.rambler.ru> In-Reply-To: <20040618012806.H72823@odysseus.silby.com> References: <20040618094356.O22477@is.park.rambler.ru> <20040618062418.GU61448@elvis.mu.org> <20040618012806.H72823@odysseus.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Mike Silbersack wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > I was going to suggest vmstat now that sfbufs are used for so many > > other things than just "sendfile bufs". > > > > -- > > - Alfred Perlstein > > How about if we do this: > > 5.x: List sfbufs both in vmstat _and_ in netstat -m, as their status is > relevant to both network and general memory usage. > > 4.x: MFC the vmstat implementation. > > This would preserve 4.x's behavior, but allow 5.x users (who have a new > netstat -m output format anyway) to see sfbuf information without invocing > multiple utilities. In 4.x sfbufs are network buffers only and I think it's handy to see the network buffer statistics in one place. I prefer to see netstat -ms or netstat -m. And nothing against additional the vmstat implementation. Igor Sysoev http://sysoev.ru/en/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040618103517.L81288>