From owner-freebsd-net Thu Jul 11 19: 8:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45CC37B400 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from angelica.unixdaemons.com (angelica.unixdaemons.com [209.148.64.135]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC1243E31 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:08:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bmilekic@angelica.unixdaemons.com) Received: from angelica.unixdaemons.com (bmilekic@localhost.unixdaemons.com [127.0.0.1]) by angelica.unixdaemons.com (8.12.5/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g6C27v6M004200; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:07:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: angelica.unixdaemons.com: Host bmilekic@localhost.unixdaemons.com [127.0.0.1] claimed to be angelica.unixdaemons.com Received: (from bmilekic@localhost) by angelica.unixdaemons.com (8.12.5/8.12.1/Submit) id g6C27vXv004195; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:07:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bmilekic) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:07:57 -0400 From: Bosko Milekic To: Kelly Yancey Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf external buffer reference counters Message-ID: <20020711220757.A2476@unixdaemons.com> References: <20020711171255.A19014@unixdaemons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from kbyanc@posi.net on Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 07:31:17PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 07:31:17PM -0400, Kelly Yancey wrote: > > This is a good observation if we're going to be doing benchmarking, > > but I'm not sure whether the repercussions are that important (unless, > > as I said, there's a lot of applications that send exactly 8192 > > byte chunks?). Basically, what we're doing is shifting the optimal > > send size when using exactly 4 clusters, in this case, to (8192 - 16) > > bytes. We can still send with exactly 4 clusters, it's just that the > > optimal send size is a little different, that's all (this produces a > > small shift in block send benchmark curves, usually). > > > > Are you kidding? Benchmarks, presumably like every other piece of > software produced by someone trying to get the most performance out of > the system, are more likely to have power-of-two write buffers. Are you > willing to risk that they didn't also just happen to pick a multiple of > 2^11? > > Yes, it seems elegant to put the counters in the space that is normally > unused for receive mbuf clusters, but you can't just blow off Luigi's > point regarding the send side. First of all, I'm not "blowing off" anyone's comments. I don't appreciate the fact that you're eagerly instructing me to "not blow off comments" (which I didn't do to begin with) without providing any more constructive feedback. All I pointed out was that the optimal block size is merely changed from an exact 2k, 4k, 8k, etc. to something slightly smaller. What point are *you* trying to put across? Tell me what's bad about that or, better: Do you have a better suggestion to make? What do *you* suggest we do with the external ref. counts? Please, spare me the flame bait. I wasn't being confrontational when I answered Luigi's post and I don't need anyone turning this into something confrontational. Thanks. > Kelly > > -- > Kelly Yancey -- kbyanc@{posi.net,FreeBSD.org} -- Bosko Milekic bmilekic@unixdaemons.com bmilekic@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message