From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 12 18:01:10 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE44A804 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:01:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from oppermann@networx.ch) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA098FC16 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:01:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 18936 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2012 19:35:29 -0000 Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([62.48.2.2]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 12 Nov 2012 19:35:29 -0000 Message-ID: <50A13961.1030909@networx.ch> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:01:05 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alfred Perlstein Subject: Re: auto tuning tcp References: <50A0A0EF.3020109@mu.org> <50A0A502.1030306@networx.ch> <50A0B8DA.9090409@mu.org> <50A0C0F4.8010706@networx.ch> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" , Adrian Chadd , Peter Wemm 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: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:01:11 -0000 On 12.11.2012 18:43, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > On Nov 12, 2012, at 1:27 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > >> On 12.11.2012 09:52, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >>> On 11/11/12 11:28 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>>> On 12.11.2012 08:10, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >>>>> I noticed that TCBHASHSIZE does not autotune. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think of the following algorithm? >>>>> >>>>> Basically round down to next power of two based on nmbclusters / 64. >>>> >>>> Please wait out for a real fix of the various mbuf-whatever tuning >>>> issue I'll propose shortly. This approach may become inapproriate. >>>> Also the mbuf limits can be changed at runtime by sysctl. >>>> >>> What is the timeline you are asking for to wait? >> >> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/242910 > > Very cool! > > So instead of nmbclusters, will maxsockets work? Ideas/suggestions? I've already added the tunable "kern.maxmbufmem" which is in pages. That's probably not very convenient to work with. I can change it to a percentage of phymem/kva. Would that make you happy? -- Andre