From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 29 23:30:29 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75AAF16A4E8 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:30:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22DFA43D6E for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:30:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 98644 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2006 23:31:35 -0000 Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([62.48.2.2]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 29 Sep 2006 23:31:35 -0000 Message-ID: <451DAC8F.7030309@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 01:30:23 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andre Oppermann , freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Randall Stewart , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Mike Silbersack , gallatin@cs.duke.edu References: <451C4850.5030302@freebsd.org> <451D884F.1030807@cisco.com> <20060929213722.GR80527@funkthat.com> <451D973C.8070004@freebsd.org> <20060929231007.GS80527@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <20060929231007.GS80527@funkthat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: Much improved sosend_*() functions X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:30:29 -0000 John-Mark Gurney wrote: > Andre Oppermann wrote this message on Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 23:59 +0200: >> Just don't overengineer the stuff. Mbufs are only used temporarily and >> a bit theoretical waste is not much a problem (so far at least). > > Well, I beg to differ... most gige cards grab mbuf+cluster for every > single ring buffer they have.. which is usually 512... so every gige > interface for the most part consumes 1meg of memory that is not > reusable... because if we run out of mbuf+clusters to replace in the > receive ring, we will not tap into the 1meg of mbuf+clusters available > to us... so, if you have a quad gige, that's 4megs wasted, plus w/ the > fact that we could only use ~65% of that memory, that's a lot of memory > wasted... The problem is the network cards again. Only a few allow different rx rings to be used (for example bge(4)) where you can have multiple mbuf (+cluster) sizes and the card choses the smallest fit at receive time. > Yeh, everyone says you have gigs of memory, but do we really want to > be known as the wasteful OS? -- Andre