From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 8 17:04:37 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1251B97 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:04:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu) Received: from hergotha.csail.mit.edu (wollman-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:ccb::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B70D377 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:04:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hergotha.csail.mit.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hergotha.csail.mit.edu (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r28H4a4N003421; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 12:04:36 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by hergotha.csail.mit.edu (8.14.5/8.14.4/Submit) id r28H4aD4003418; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 12:04:36 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from wollman) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <20794.6692.191898.682241@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 12:04:36 -0500 From: Garrett Wollman To: Jack Vogel Subject: Re: Limits on jumbo mbuf cluster allocation In-Reply-To: References: <20793.36593.774795.720959@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <51399926.6020201@freebsd.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 22) "Instant Classic" XEmacs Lucid X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (hergotha.csail.mit.edu [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 08 Mar 2013 12:04:36 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on hergotha.csail.mit.edu Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 17:04:37 -0000 < said: > I am not strongly opposed to trying the 4k mbuf pool for all larger sizes, > Garrett maybe if you would try that on your system and see if that helps > you, I could envision making this a tunable at some point perhaps? If you can provide a patch I can certainly build it in to our kernel and have it ready the next time the production server crashes. I'd like it to be at least a *little* tested by someone else beforehand, though. -GAWollman