From owner-freebsd-net  Thu Oct  4  9:44:50 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 AC77737B409
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Thu,  4 Oct 2001 09:44:45 -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 f94Gig372852;
	Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:44:42 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from mike@sentex.net)
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011004122716.0408d470@marble.sentex.ca>
X-Sender: mdtpop@marble.sentex.ca
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:38:19 -0400
To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org>
From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>
Subject: Re: How to increase TCP and UDP buffers (for IPv4/IPv6)
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <200110041628.f94GSXP45008@iguana.aciri.org>
References: <21morto01so4jkebem9s5t1tf6ohm1uple@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-net.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-net>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-net>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

At 09:28 AM 10/4/01 -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > >     sysctl -w net.inet.ip.intr_queue_maxlen=100
> >
> > Hi,
> > Are there any nasty side effects for increasing this value ? Also, how
> > would one go about tracking down why net.inet.ip.intr_queue_drops is
> > incrementing ?
>
>In general, if your system is unable to drain ipintrq fast enough
>then you are hitting some CPU shortage, and increasing the queue
>size will not help, except perhaps in the short term or in peculiar
>situations where you have many interfaces, no fast_forwarding (this
>would help a lot here), or very bursty input traffic.

I guess in my case, the load average is general 0.00, but that is just 
measuring userland activity no ?  Is there a way to allocate more CPU to 
the kernel for routing ?  The box in question has some 100,000 routes, so I 
dont think I can implement fast_forwarding-- or am I thinking of something 
else?

Also, will removing ipv6 from the kernel make it more efficient acting as a 
router ?

Thanks very much for your input.

         ---Mike


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message