Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:44:46 -0500 From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, Patrick Kelsey <pkelsey@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: option TCP_RFC7413 is not in GENERIC Message-ID: <1521236686.3747283.1305998104.4B75D739@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <1521216713.99081.55.camel@freebsd.org> References: <1521062028.2511351.1303413736.6960BF4F@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20180314233811.GA35025@mail.bsd4all.net> <CAD44qMUR_bKOzaWLMatGT3xXWdovWm3Abv8zwu=NCVm6YjEkiQ@mail.gmail.com> <1521216713.99081.55.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018, at 11:11, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 16:04 +0000, Patrick Kelsey wrote: > > The current thinking is that users who care > > about such performance differences are dealing with extreme workloads t= hat > > already motivate them to compile their own kernels, or are working with > > very resource-constrained platforms, so the way forward is to keep the > > TCP_RFC7413 kernel option around and enable it by default for the > > server-class platforms (armd64 and arm64). >=20 > I have no idea what TCP_RFC7413 even is, but I know I was forced to add > it to my kernel config when I installed the bind911 package during a > recent upgrade. =C2=A0This is on a tiny NUC for which saturating even one= of > its gbe interfaces would count as "extreme workload". :) >=20 Funny, BIND911 is what sent me down this rabbit hole as well. Thanks for the feedback and information, all! Look forward to these improve= ments :-) --=20 Mark Felder ports-secteam & portmgr member feld@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1521236686.3747283.1305998104.4B75D739>