Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 18:09:22 -0400 From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com> To: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf leak? fxp? Message-ID: <20010406180922.A30267@technokratis.com> In-Reply-To: <200104060404.f3644Fa75013@arch20m.dellroad.org>; from archie@dellroad.org on Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 09:04:15PM -0700 References: <20010405194846.A22964@technokratis.com> <200104060404.f3644Fa75013@arch20m.dellroad.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 09:04:15PM -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Bosko Milekic writes:
> > NMBUFS accordingly. Chances are, if you are explicitly declaring
> > `NMBCLUSTERS <NO>' in your kernel configuration file, that you are
> > actually lowering the number of clusters/mbufs that would otherwise be
> > allowed with your given `maxusers' value (unless you have an unreasonably
> > low maxusers).
>
> Mmm.. I don't understand that.. can you explain?
Heh. I'm sorry for being so "obscure" about this. After re-reading
it, I realize I should have probably just quoted the following:
#ifndef NMBCLUSTERS
#define NMBCLUSTERS (512 + MAXUSERS * 16)
#endif
TUNABLE_INT_DECL("kern.ipc.nmbclusters", NMBCLUSTERS, nmbclusters);
TUNABLE_INT_DECL("kern.ipc.nmbufs", NMBCLUSTERS * 4, nmbufs);
(from src/sys/kern/uipc_mbuf.c)
So, for example, for MAXUSERS 256, NMBCLUSTERS is 4608, whereas I have
seen people do things like this before:
maxusers 256
options NMBCLUSTERS 4096
Thus actually reducing the address space allotted to clusters.
> -Archie
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Archie Cobbs * Packet Design * http://www.packetdesign.com
Regards,
--
Bosko Milekic
bmilekic@technokratis.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010406180922.A30267>