Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 09:55:55 +1000 From: Dave+Seddon <dave-sender-1932b5@seddon.ca> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: running out of mbufs? Message-ID: <1123545356.93682.TMDA@seddon.ca> In-Reply-To: <42F78C87.5EB79CBC@freebsd.org> References: <1123040973.95445.TMDA@seddon.ca> <1123055951.16791.TMDA@seddon.ca> <42F734D0.6F7387E0@freebsd.org> <200508081757.47499.zec@icir.org> <42F78C87.5EB79CBC@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greetings, It=E2=80=99s very cool to hear you guys are interested in separate routin= g. > Having multiple stacks duplicates a lot of structures for each stack > which don't have to be duplicated. With your approach you need a new > jail for every new stack. In each jail you have to run a new instance > of a routing daemon (if you do routing). And it precludes having one > routing daemon managing multiple routing tables. While removing one > limitation you create some new ones in addition to the complexity. Running multiple routing daemons isn=E2=80=99t too much of a problem thou= gh. The memory size isn=E2=80=99t usually very high, and it is more likely to be = secure if the daemons are separate. If somebody was going to run a large instance = of routing they should probably use a router, not a unix box. Regards, Dave Seddon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1123545356.93682.TMDA>