From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 22 20:03:02 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BD1106566C; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:03:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lacombar@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ww0-f50.google.com (mail-ww0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB82F8FC14; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:03:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgbdq11 with SMTP id dq11so396000wgb.31 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:03:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=xeaLOupKGvd8pL1y/XJI4rK9wlhyyJ8aP4SDOUI2akE=; b=pC/vXu0ZIr6X5bFaqbF1GQ1ajU0DsDaRiwydsAoSy6TCgJMTxhHh8FM4JTr3xlsCwq wxPWvWh8AQrWEo04beJq4FvAcxLSvFTIfI4NdZUEIzkC5cdWamVuIBiYye6dbov7Yh4/ H6GuQT95kX0y+Ujey4KNE8alNVK1JVgtGbc9Q= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.79.229 with SMTP id m5mr31977151wix.6.1329940980264; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:03:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.158.133 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:03:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:03:00 -0500 Message-ID: From: Arnaud Lacombe To: Jack Vogel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: FreeBSD Net , FreeBSD stable , re Subject: Re: nmbclusters: how do we want to fix this for 8.3 ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:03:02 -0000 Hi, On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Jack Vogel wrote: > Using igb and/or ixgbe on a reasonably powered server requires 1K mbuf > clusters per MSIX vector, > that's how many are in a ring. Either driver will configure 8 queues on a > system with that many or more > cores, so 8K clusters per port... > > My test engineer has a system with 2 igb ports, and 2 10G ixgbe, this is > hardly heavy duty, and yet this > exceeds the default mbuf pool on the installed kernel (1024 + maxusers * > 64). > > Now, this can be immediately fixed by a sysadmin after that first boot, but > it does result in the second > driver that gets started to complain about inadequate buffers. > > I think the default calculation is dated and should be changed, but am not > sure the best way, so are > there suggestions/opinions about this, and might we get it fixed before 8.3 > is baked? > get rid of the limit once and for all, it is pointless. - Arnaud