From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 16 00:36:29 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18CFA16A4CE; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:36:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C53D43D3F; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:36:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([24.7.73.28]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2004031608362501600l9vfge>; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 08:36:25 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA53060; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:36:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:36:21 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Marcel Moolenaar In-Reply-To: <20040316022337.GA44429@ns1.xcllnt.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Mike Jakubik cc: net@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Byte counters reset at ~4GB X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 08:36:29 -0000 On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 04:05:44PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > > > It seems that the byte counters (derived from netstat -nbi) reset at > > > around 4 GB. Is there no way around this? It would be nice to be able to > > > see an accurate display of totals. It just seems pointless to even have > > > this, as 4 GB is just not that much anymore. I know this is a 32bit > > > limitation of the variable, but that's just bad coding in my opinion (no > > > offence intended), I mean there must be some way around this. > > > > I think in the past it's been pointed out changing to a 64-bit > > variable would slow down the code on non-64-bit architectures like the > > venerable i386. > > Is there a particular reason I don't know about as to why we cannot > introduce a MD typedef for counters like this (or even just "long")? > I mean, if people make the statement that widening counters is not an > option because it slows down some platforms, I must be missing the > reason for it to be an all or none kind of issue. I believe that the expense is that acting on the counters can not be both cheap and atomic at the same time.. I think we need a whole pile of atomic primatives in addition to what we already have. including an atomic reference conting method and atomic statistics methods. > > -- > Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >