From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Mar 24 21:17:15 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF91106564A;
	Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:17:15 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from ivoras@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com
	[209.85.213.54])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CAB8FC17;
	Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:17:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by yhgm50 with SMTP id m50so4062883yhg.13
	for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=AGIOFSLeIpZoVBDXm2lzUNUE2a1VLSzCbnJwv/aRMps=;
	b=MIMTGlI78OxiIPWg/yVQNHO8onTvL+EmDxggmlgbOsDgZTFr5Uc49K01tdahWk8zRn
	ZZiqnnbVKM2jR+4fmmnmjKC3J9YIZubiG+Up1cHmaVw6HSwOCtc3yz3y2NnN+Lz/E1iN
	i18+LgqNJ2Z07bHD4VD+RGhUsFjVqjGw413hhM5cd4twD8v41h6hKdIUyNiMNiBQDZr1
	10EZdwZctGLIYRfCoNrVLFXuN2mSSOlW7l9nww/5ou18e8XTkQp/hU4V8Y896dZFBUk7
	I+nGB4NxLqXQzAPVUU8WVgQNDSQnsopfRrb6/kJPE9AvlilQHdDzQmVxMVG5jo1k9If1
	YK6A==
Received: by 10.236.152.73 with SMTP id c49mr16969114yhk.91.1332623828484;
	Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: ivoras@gmail.com
Received: by 10.101.101.10 with HTTP; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACVs6=_kGtQX05baYdi2xqG380uLpcmn9WWo4NeGZ+vrXEnXZw@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+kNvPuBodmc56wHmdg_pCrAODfztVnamw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120324200853.GE2253@funkthat.com>
	<CAFOYbcm_UySny1pUq2hYBcLDpCq6-BwBZLYVEnwAwcy6vtcvng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACVs6=_kGtQX05baYdi2xqG380uLpcmn9WWo4NeGZ+vrXEnXZw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 22:16:28 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: aluScvRRQxZix_hYqRODFPdbZMA
Message-ID: <CAF-QHFXVx7eZkPoEiNuggcJNKfWs+sTqY0hvbTA0iALdneqC0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: nmbclusters: how do we want to fix this for 8.3 ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:17:15 -0000

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?