Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:56:09 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: CHOI Junho <cjh@kr.FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mbuf tuning Message-ID: <20040120015356.N39477@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20040119.192257.34695172.cjh@kr.FreeBSD.org> References: <20040119.153452.10362034.cjh@kr.FreeBSD.org> <20040119.192257.34695172.cjh@kr.FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, CHOI Junho wrote: > I am using custom version of thttpd. It allocates mmap() first(builtin > method of thttpd), and it try to use sendfile() if mmap() fails(out of > mmap memory). It really works good in normal status but the problem is > that sendfile buffer is also easy to flood. I need more sendfile > buffers but I don't know how to increase sendfile buffers either(I > think it's hidden sysctl but it was more difficult to tune than > nmbclusters). With higher traffic, thttpd sometimes stuck at "sfbufa" > status when I run top(I guess it's "sendfile buffer allocation" > status). > > 5.2 is fair good quality in my desktop but I have no experience in > production environment. I'll consider it once 5.x enters -STABLE tree, > but not now. > > Apache2 is one of my targets. How much better than apache-1.3.x in > static file service? thttpd using sendfile will certainly run circles around apache2, apache2 is still pre-fork. Under 4.x, you're going to have to tune the sfbufs by trial and error, but doing so will be worth it. Mike "Silby" Silbersackhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040120015356.N39477>