Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:56:09 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: CHOI Junho <cjh@kr.FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mbuf tuning Message-ID: <20040120015356.N39477@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20040119.192257.34695172.cjh@kr.FreeBSD.org> References: <20040119.153452.10362034.cjh@kr.FreeBSD.org> <20040119.192257.34695172.cjh@kr.FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, CHOI Junho wrote: > I am using custom version of thttpd. It allocates mmap() first(builtin > method of thttpd), and it try to use sendfile() if mmap() fails(out of > mmap memory). It really works good in normal status but the problem is > that sendfile buffer is also easy to flood. I need more sendfile > buffers but I don't know how to increase sendfile buffers either(I > think it's hidden sysctl but it was more difficult to tune than > nmbclusters). With higher traffic, thttpd sometimes stuck at "sfbufa" > status when I run top(I guess it's "sendfile buffer allocation" > status). > > 5.2 is fair good quality in my desktop but I have no experience in > production environment. I'll consider it once 5.x enters -STABLE tree, > but not now. > > Apache2 is one of my targets. How much better than apache-1.3.x in > static file service? thttpd using sendfile will certainly run circles around apache2, apache2 is still pre-fork. Under 4.x, you're going to have to tune the sfbufs by trial and error, but doing so will be worth it. Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040120015356.N39477>