From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 13 08:25:26 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EAB86C3 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:25:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from oppermann@networx.ch) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5EE48FC08 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:25:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 23388 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2012 09:59:39 -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 ; 13 Nov 2012 09:59:39 -0000 Message-ID: <50A203F0.3020803@networx.ch> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:25:20 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alfred Perlstein Subject: Re: auto tuning tcp References: <50A0A0EF.3020109@mu.org> <50A0A502.1030306@networx.ch> <50A0B8DA.9090409@mu.org> <50A0C0F4.8010706@networx.ch> <50A13961.1030909@networx.ch> <50A14460.9020504@mu.org> <50A1E2E7.3090705@mu.org> <50A1E47C.1030208@mu.org> <50A1EC92.9000507@mu.org> <50A1FF80.3040900@networx.ch> <50A20251.7010302@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <50A20251.7010302@mu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:25:26 -0000 On 13.11.2012 09:18, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 11/13/12 12:06 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote: >> On 13.11.2012 07:45, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >>> If you are concerned about the space/time tradeoff I'm pretty happy with making it 1/2, 1/4th, 1/8th >>> the size of maxsockets. (smaller?) >>> >>> Would that work better? >> >> I'd go for 1/8 or even 1/16 with a lower bound of 512. More than >> that is excessive. > > I'm OK with 1/8. All I'm really going for is trying to make it somewhat better than 512 when un-tuned. > >> PS: Please note that my patch for mbuf and maxfiles tuning is not yet >> in HEAD, it's still sitting in my tcp_workqueue branch. I still have >> to search for derived values that may get totally out of whack with >> the new scaling scheme. >> > This is cool! Thank you for the feedback. > > Would you like me to put this on a user branch somewhere for you to merge into your perf branch? I can put it into my branch and also merge it to HEAD with a "Submitted by: alfred" line. -- Andre