From owner-freebsd-database Tue Oct 26 21:22: 9 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.213.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50EB14A18; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:22:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tom@sdf.com) Received: from tom (helo=localhost) by misery.sdf.com with local-esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11gJ6Q-0006v8-00; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:46:18 -0700 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:46:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom To: Steve Bishop Cc: freebsd-database@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, "Paul.Marquess@btinternet.com" Subject: Re: mbuf problem (panic)--possibly related to Berkeley DB 2.7.7 In-Reply-To: <38160B6A.5568F6D1@iserver.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-database@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Steve Bishop wrote: > The scripts are designed to use the database a lot, and they also use a significant amount > of network resources. The scripts sometimes can have up to 900 open tcp connections, > and consistently use almost 600. I have increased the number of mbuf clusters (NMBCLUSTERS) > from 1024 to 4096. I have also increased maxusers to 64. 4096 isn't really that many mbufs. You should double or triple that. I think that large web hosting people use 20000 mbufs. That eats a LOT of RAM, but at least you can shrug off the heaviest DoS attack. In fact, if you don't specify a number of mbufs in your kernel file, MAXUSERS set to 64 will probably give you more than 4096 mbufs! Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-database" in the body of the message