Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 24 Mar 2012 22:16:28 +0100
From:      Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
To:        Juli Mallett <jmallett@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: nmbclusters: how do we want to fix this for 8.3 ?
Message-ID:  <CAF-QHFXVx7eZkPoEiNuggcJNKfWs%2BsTqY0hvbTA0iALdneqC0g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACVs6=_kGtQX05baYdi2xqG380uLpcmn9WWo4NeGZ%2BvrXEnXZw@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAFOYbc=oU5DxZDZQZZe4wJhVDoP=ocVOnpDq7bT=HbVkAjffLQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120222205231.GA81949@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <1329944986.2621.46.camel@bwh-desktop> <20120222214433.GA82582@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <CAFOYbc=BWkvGuqAOVehaYEVc7R_4b1Cq1i7Ged=-YEpCekNvfA@mail.gmail.com> <134564BB-676B-49BB-8BDA-6B8EB8965969@netasq.com> <ji5ldg$8tl$1@dough.gmane.org> <CACVs6=_avBzUm0mJd%2BkNvPuBodmc56wHmdg_pCrAODfztVnamw@mail.gmail.com> <20120324200853.GE2253@funkthat.com> <CAFOYbcm_UySny1pUq2hYBcLDpCq6-BwBZLYVEnwAwcy6vtcvng@mail.gmail.com> <CACVs6=_kGtQX05baYdi2xqG380uLpcmn9WWo4NeGZ%2BvrXEnXZw@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 24 March 2012 22:02, Juli Mallett <jmallett@freebsd.org> wrote:

> If we make it easier to change the
> tuning of the system for that scenario, then nobody's going to care
> what our defaults are, or think us "slow" for them.

Unfortunately, years of past experience goes against this particular
argument. There are simply too many cases where users complain on the
mailing lists that "X is slow", only to receive an answer "well then,
tune Y, the last time Y has been updated has been in 4.4BSD" or
somesuch.

> But again, 1G NICs are the default now.  Does every FreeBSD system
> with a 1G NIC have loads of memory?  No.  I have an Atheros system
> with 2 1G NICs and 256MB of RAM.  It can't do anything at 1gbps.  Not
> even drop packets.  Why should its memory usage model be tuned for
> something it can't do?

I don't think anyone is advocating such nonsense as tuning the
defaults so that they blow out the memory configuration :)

Any such tuning will probably be done either as a linear function of
the present RAM, or as a "stepped" function of the same, e.g. "if RAM
< 256MB then keep the defaults from 1980s, else if RAM < 1024 MB, use
defaults from 1990s, else do the right thing and use an equation".
Would you be happy with this?



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF-QHFXVx7eZkPoEiNuggcJNKfWs%2BsTqY0hvbTA0iALdneqC0g>