From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 19 23:56:14 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11D2516A4CE for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:56:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay.pair.com (relay.pair.com [209.68.1.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 44C5943D53 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:56:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: (qmail 87331 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 07:56:10 -0000 Received: from niwun.pair.com (HELO localhost) (209.68.2.70) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 07:56:10 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 209.68.2.70 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:56:09 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack To: CHOI Junho In-Reply-To: <20040119.192257.34695172.cjh@kr.FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <20040120015356.N39477@odysseus.silby.com> References: <20040119.153452.10362034.cjh@kr.FreeBSD.org> <20040119.192257.34695172.cjh@kr.FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mbuf tuning X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:56:14 -0000 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