Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:25:20 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@networx.ch> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: auto tuning tcp Message-ID: <50A203F0.3020803@networx.ch> In-Reply-To: <50A20251.7010302@mu.org> References: <50A0A0EF.3020109@mu.org> <50A0A502.1030306@networx.ch> <50A0B8DA.9090409@mu.org> <50A0C0F4.8010706@networx.ch> <EB2C22B5-C18D-4AC2-8694-C5C0D96C07B3@mu.org> <50A13961.1030909@networx.ch> <50A14460.9020504@mu.org> <50A1E2E7.3090705@mu.org> <50A1E47C.1030208@mu.org> <CAGE5yCoj1dL9w-EMMi8iYMTOq9uUUHmFg4rMY7aPneUBHBv67Q@mail.gmail.com> <50A1EC92.9000507@mu.org> <50A1FF80.3040900@networx.ch> <50A20251.7010302@mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50A203F0.3020803>