Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 12:40:38 -0500 From: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> To: Clement Laforet <sheep.killer@cultdeadsheep.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NAT performance tweaks Message-ID: <3EB94516.5070503@centtech.com> References: <3EB67822.3070802@centtech.com> <20030505182756.093fb1c3.sheep.killer@cultdeadsheep.org> <3EB6A0BF.1040803@centtech.com> <20030506042044.GA84589@c7.campus.utcluj.ro> <3EB922B7.2080002@centtech.com> <20030507170155.GA13015@c7.campus.utcluj.ro> <20030507193247.6f60584f.sheep.killer@cultdeadsheep.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Clement Laforet wrote: >>Would certainly be nice to make it as a sysctl. It's a pain in the ass >>to edit it manually everytime I cvsup. :/ > > > Using a sysctl variable is a BAD idea for NAT table. If this variable is > if it can be) modified, all the NAT table must be reinitialized, because > of hash key. You should have a table size which minimizes hash > collisions, and then avoids loops and/or hypothetical race conditions. Well, why not make it a /boot/loader.conf settable sysctl, so while the system is running, it is "read only", and only settable on boot. Is there a flaw in that thinking? Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Systems Administrator Centaur Technology Attitudes are contagious, is yours worth catching? ------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EB94516.5070503>