From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Nov 18 8:49:40 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from devserv.devel.redhat.com (devserv.devel.redhat.com [207.175.42.156]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4434615167 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:49:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from zab@zabbo.net) Received: from localhost (zab@localhost) by devserv.devel.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA21863 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:49:07 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: devserv.devel.redhat.com: zab owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:49:07 -0500 (EST) From: Zach Brown X-Sender: zab@devserv.devel.redhat.com To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? In-Reply-To: <199911181535.HAA15679@implode.root.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > >(sysctl-ized) in FBSD (Some work have been done in Linux, since a > >well-known comparative benchmark offense). Would be even more usefull > >in SMP context. I don't think the wake-many problem was ever the cause of the poor numbers that comparitve benchmark unearthed. This is only a problem if you have a whole slew of children sitting around waiting for new connections, rather than doing real work. this sure isn't the environment a heavily loaded server is under :) If you're still curious, check out http://www.kegel.com/mindcraft_redux.html specifically http://kernelnotes.org/lnxlists/linux-kernel/lk_9906_04/msg01100.html -- zach - - - - - - 007 373 5963 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message