From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Dec 14 15:19: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA31437B401 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2002 15:18:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.econolodgetulsa.com (mail.econolodgetulsa.com [198.78.66.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8560F43EB2 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2002 15:18:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from user@mail.econolodgetulsa.com) Received: from mail (user@mail [198.78.66.163]) by mail.econolodgetulsa.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gBENIxZb070591; Sat, 14 Dec 2002 15:19:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from user@mail.econolodgetulsa.com) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 15:18:59 -0800 (PST) From: Josh Brooks To: "Jack L. Stone" Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NMBCLUSTERS over 4096 dangerous in any way ? In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20021214171000.01244eb8@mail.sage-one.net> Message-ID: <20021214151755.C77087-100000@mail.econolodgetulsa.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG How much physical memory do you have on the system that you upped to 8192 ? I am trying to find out if there is some correlation between physical memory and what is safe to set NMBCLUSTERS to ... or is NMBCLUSTERS such a small part of physical memory that even if you set it to 128,000 you still wouldn't be eating into the physical memory of a ... 64 meg system for instance ? On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Jack L. Stone wrote: > At 02:36 PM 12.14.2002 -0800, Josh Brooks wrote: > > > >Hi, > > > >I have a firewall that is starting to get a little overworked. I > >currently have this line in my kernel config: > > > >options NMBCLUSTERS=4096 > > > >and I am starting to hit that limit: > > > >276/4096/4096 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max) > > > >So, the obvious response is to increase that NMBCLUSTERS value. > > > >----- > > > >However, in all the examples and discussion I have seen, I have never seen > >anyone discuss raising it above 4096. I have no indication that raising > >it to ... say ... 8192 would be dangerous/risky, but I think I should ask > >just to make sure. > > > >The system is a P3-600 with 256 megs physical ram, and 128 megs swap. > >This system has no other duties than firewalling. System is running > >4.4-RELEASE. > > > >SO: > > > >1. any comments on raising NMBCLUSTERS to 8192 ? any other values that > >need to be tuned to support that ? > > > >2. what is the max I could safely raise NMBCLUSTERS to ? > > > > > >thanks! > > > > When I ran into overload problems using NFS, I had to bump up to 8192 and > have not seen any problem since. The error message from the system just > complained about the clusters and did not say anything more than recommend > bumping. In my own research, I found 8192 commonly used, but the research > was skimpy at that. > > Coincidentially, a message was just posted that says he is using 32768.... > > Best regards, > Jack L. Stone, > Administrator > > SageOne Net > http://www.sage-one.net > jackstone@sage-one.net > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message