From owner-freebsd-net Thu Jul 11 19:34:57 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 EFAD537B400 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kronos.networkrichmond.com (kronos.networkrichmond.com [64.240.180.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707A343E54 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:34:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kbyanc@posi.net) X-Provider: NetworkRichmond, Inc. http://www.networkrichmond.com/ Received: from localhost (kbyanc@localhost) by kronos.networkrichmond.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/antispam) with ESMTP id WAA57705; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:34:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:34:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Kelly Yancey X-Sender: kbyanc@kronos.networkrichmond.com To: Bosko Milekic Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf external buffer reference counters In-Reply-To: <20020711220757.A2476@unixdaemons.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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, 11 Jul 2002, Bosko Milekic wrote: > 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. > > -- > Bosko Milekic > bmilekic@unixdaemons.com > bmilekic@FreeBSD.org > Whoa man, that must have across completely wrong. I didn't mean to imply any confrontational at all. Actually, if anything I was just trying to restate what should be obvious (and which I think was the point Luigi already made): that for better or worse userland apps think that using power-of-2 write buffers will improve performance. You're right, I don't understand all of the issues well enough to suggest an alternative. And if it weren't for the fact the just about every engineer on the planet has had the "power-of-2 good" rule drilled into them, I would have kept my mouth shut as I usually do. When I saw you suggesting that the optimum size would just be a little lower without mentioning POLA, an alarm went off in my head. In any event, I'll go crawl back into my corner now. Kelly -- Kelly Yancey -- kbyanc@{posi.net,FreeBSD.org} To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message