From owner-freebsd-net Fri Oct 12 9:20:20 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from smtp1.sentex.ca (smtp1.sentex.ca [199.212.134.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C89637B407 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from simoeon.sentex.net (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by smtp1.sentex.ca (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9CGKEd14637; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:20:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011012121150.072325d0@marble.sentex.ca> X-Sender: mdtpop@marble.sentex.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:13:59 -0400 To: Archie Cobbs From: Mike Tancsa Subject: Re: strange results with increased net.inet.ip.intr_queue_maxlen Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <200110120116.f9C1GEv18196@arch20m.dellroad.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011011164834.0728c2e0@marble.sentex.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 06:16 PM 10/11/01 -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote: >If the forwarding path is maxed out, then it is the application layer's >responsibility to back off (think TCP). Is it better for the networking layer to deal with this (potentially introducing some latency) as opposed to letting the application ? >Pinging is an excellent way to determine latency. I guess then its only at the "worst case" where I would see the added latency as I dont see any difference by adjusting the queue size. ---Mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message