From owner-freebsd-net Mon Sep 9 10:34:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A4437B401 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:34:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newnet.co.uk (newnet.co.uk [212.87.80.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10BD643E6A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:34:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@newnet.co.uk) Received: from newnet.co.uk (peter.port [212.87.87.37]) by newnet.co.uk (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g89HXgNE030823; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 18:33:42 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from peter@newnet.co.uk) Message-ID: <3D7CDB82.1070906@newnet.co.uk> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 18:33:54 +0100 From: Peter V Coates-Bulgear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Harti Brandt Cc: Andre Oppermann , Petr Holub , net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 32 bit couters in netstat References: <20020909181135.K30835-100000@beagle.fokus.gmd.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newnet-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Harti Brandt wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > AO>Harti Brandt wrote: > AO>> > AO>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Petr Holub wrote: > AO>> > AO>> PH>> > I've just found that netstat in FreeBSD 4.4 has just 32 bit couters > AO>> PH>> > (compared to 64 bit counters in NetBSD), at least for Ibytes and Obytes. > AO>> PH>> > Is there any improvement in this respect in -STABLE or in -CURRENT? > AO>> PH>> > AO>> PH>> No because certain people argue that having a 64 bit counter slows > AO>> PH>> down the machine to the level of a 386SX-16 and who needs large > AO>> PH>> counters anyway... > AO>> PH> > AO>> PH>I don't think NetBSD is slow that way ;o))). > AO>> > AO>> If you search the archives you will find the arguments. As far as I > AO>> remember the problem is to do the counter update atomically correct. > AO> > AO>Yes. Doing a 64 bit atomically add even on UP machines takes a couple > AO>a CPU cycles more. But does that matter with 2.8GHz machines? > > Not everyone has the money to buy a new machine each time one comes out. > > It may matter for people having a 486 in the corner to do their local > routing. It may also matter for people that never look at their counters. > > But as I said already, refer to the archives. Anything that slows a machine down is bad news :( Even if only a few CPU cycles. I feel 32bits are just fine. Best to install some additional s/w if you really need 64 bit counters. Rather than force it on everyone. Thanks, Peter -- ____________________________________________________ Message scanned for viruses and dangerous content by and believed to be clean To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message